I am a very much pro enforcement of traffic laws, but I'm also fairly opposed to camera enforcement in general. The entire notion that increasing amounts of our lives are on film makes me incredibly uneasy, and I doubt I'm the only one.

by Nate on Sep 22, 2009 11:47 am • link • report

I trust that when the city next conducts a sweep for jaywalking you will repost this article substituting the word "jaywalking" for "speeding" pretty much everywhere.

On the merits, any enforcement program needs a minimum level of legitimacy, and DC's photo enforcement regularly borders on that level. Let's put aside the arguments that have been well-hashed, like the revenue incentives for the vendor and the invasiveness of cameras and focus instead on whether the speed limits being enforced in a given area are reasonable in the first place (i.e., necessary for safety, or creating a safety improvement worth the added time, delay, and congestion they create) and the mechanisms of enforcement (switching from a lax "10 mph over is permissible" to zero tolerance without notice). I don't think the argument is so one-sided.

by ah on Sep 22, 2009 11:51 am • link • report

It minimizes the threat and the size of the infraction when someone argues "it's only 10 mph". On many DC streets, the limit is 25. "Only" going over the limit by 10 mph is akin to "only" driving 90 on a 65mph-marked route. I personally would expect a ticket and points every time I was caught doing that by VA or MD troopers on 66, 83 or 95. Why is it so unconscionable that a large infraction (140% of the posted speed limit) is enforced in DC?

by Jason on Sep 22, 2009 12:26 pm • link • report

It's only 10 mph.

Let's do the math. 10 mph out of 25 mph is 40%. So if you go 35 when 25 is allowed, you are speeding by 40%.

Speeding 40% on an interstate leads to going 90 mph in stead of 65. Does that sound acceptable?

Then the question of whether enforcement leads to more safety. The Netherlands (and other European countries) has invested massively in speeding cameras. These buggers are everywhere, much to the dismay of drivers. The final result? The annual traffic death toll has gone from 1300 to 800. And the government gets a couple hundred million in extra revenue. Revenue that they do not need to tax citizens for anymore.

by Jasper on Sep 22, 2009 12:43 pm • link • report

The roundup that you did the other day of car-related injuries and fatalities almost entirely involved speeding (and a few cases of drunk driving). Perhaps you should forward the list to Imhoff and see what he says.

by DC_Chica on Sep 22, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

Mr. Imhoffe is clearly a big baby who just wants the rules to apply to everyone but him. He should try getting hit by a car at 30mph then again by the same car at 40mph. I'm sure he'd feel the difference that speeding makes. If he's not willing to subject his own body to such tribulations (I wouldn't either) perhaps the experiences of those who have been unfortunate enough to have been hit at 30mph yet lived after extended hospital stays compare to those who were immediately killed on impact from a 40mph collision would enough to sway his opinion. I doubt it though. The selfish anti-activist is seldom swayed by reasons that the rules were originally intended to address.

by Cavan on Sep 22, 2009 1:01 pm • link • report

Speeding also reduces reaction time and increases stopping distance - making collisions more likely.

by David C on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Crackdown on speeding by cars: Good.

Crackdown on jaywalking by pedestrians: Bad.

Crackdown on bicycle violations: Worse than Hitler.

by Fritz on Sep 22, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Imhoffe just isn't making the right arguments. First of all, when was the last time an engineering study was performed to determine the 85th speed percentil and thus the safest speed limit for the road? Chances are, the limits are too low. Second, 80% of all accidents occur below the posted limit. Less than 5% of all accidents are caused by driving above the posted limit. There is far too much fuss and focus on such a minor cause of accidents. The reason is that it's simply the most visible.

Finally, the ticket system sends tickets to the wrong person more than 28% of the time! How effective can this possibly be? Can't our police do better than that? Let's have some standards here... Shouldn't the police be forced to identify the person breaking the law? You can't tell me if it's about safety when you don't even target the actual driver.

by PhotoRadarScam on Sep 22, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report

@Fritz. No one said that. Cracking down on jaywalking pedestrians and bicycle violations are fine. Cracking down on cyclists and pedestrians in response to a fatality caused by bad driving is bad. Cracking down on cyclists for a law that cyclists want changed is annoying (that's the difference, Imhoff thinks the law is good, but wants to not enforced on him). Cracking down on cyclists and pedestrians to an equal extant that you crack down on speeding is wasteful, since drivers are responsible for something like 1000 times as many deaths as cyclists and pedestrians. So that's the ratio for crack downs that makes sense. Cracking down on non-dangerous behavior like rolling through a stop sign instead of on actual dangerous behavior like riding at night without lights or wrong-way cycling is foolish and politically motivated.

by David C on Sep 22, 2009 2:00 pm • link • report

the problem is that the speed limits on many DC streets are simply too low. 45 in the 395 tunnel? That should be 55 or even 65. Today's cars can easily handle that. New York ave by the Washington Times should also be 65, same for parts of 295 and Kennilworth Ave.

M St in front of the new DOT building is 4 lanes wide, and is set at 25? That should be 45.

by metronic on Sep 22, 2009 2:19 pm • link • report

Two things, Metronic:

1) Even if we accept that the speed limits are too low, that doesn't change anything from an enforcement standpoint. Unless you want to put the police in the position of overruling elected authorities and deciding for themselves which laws to enforce, the police should enforce all laws until they're changed.

2) Although I think you may have a good argument in regards to the limited access highways, 45 mph is not a safe speed for any surface street. It is too high for pedestrians along the street to feel safe, which will cause fewer people to be pedestrians along the street. If 45 mph is the speed at which it feels natural to drive on M Street, then M Street has been designed poorly and should be calmed so that drivers feel natural going slower. What's safe for cars isn't necessarily safe for pedestrians, and surface streets like M have to be safe for both.

by BeyondDC on Sep 22, 2009 2:49 pm • link • report

... Just to be fully clear, I agree that it's bad to design a street for 45 mph traffic and then set the limit to 25, but a street like M should never be designed for 45 mph traffic in the first place.

by BeyondDC on Sep 22, 2009 2:51 pm • link • report

Imhoff used poor logic and unwittingly set up a straw-man argument for Miller to knock down. It's a simple issue of government overstepping their bounds. It's right to argue that increased enforcement of traffic laws saves lives. That's not the issue, the issue is one of balance and degree. If we wanted to truly save the most lives possible, we'd have mandatory breathalyzers on cars before you could start them. We'd have cars that automatically report speed to the government, imagine how many lives would be saved! Or maybe we could use technology to track how much sugar or fat people consume, too many burgers and you're automatically barred from ordering one the next time. We decreased drunk driving through social education campaigns and can do the same thing with aggressive driving. What we don't need is a slippery slope of government monitoring technology to protect us. How many people here would install tech to automatically monitor speed and report it to the government? Based on some of these arguments, it seems like a lot. Didn't Orwell warn us of this...?

by Josh on Sep 22, 2009 3:01 pm • link • report

BeyondDC: With respect to point 1, speed limits aren't set by elected authorities, but even so, the police don't enforce plenty of laws as written, not just driving laws. Or they enforce them only when there are egregious violations. So I think the point still stands--if the police start enforcing strictly the speed limit where that limit is unreasonably low it's going to undermine the claim that they're doing the right thing, just as strict enforcement undermines authority in other instances (e.g., zero tolerance for things like aspirin in high school, or drinking in public when it's a beer on your front porch, etc.).

by ah on Sep 22, 2009 3:04 pm • link • report

The difference between speed cameras in public space and implants that track your blood sugar, breathalyzers/black boxes in cars, etc... is one of privacy. You have no reasonable expectation of a right to privacy when driving on the road. If a police officer were stationed there 24/7 with a radar gun you'd have no complaint, but if she were in your car watching you drive that would be invasive.

by David C on Sep 22, 2009 3:17 pm • link • report

David C, that's only because your expectations of privacy have been set so low.

Are you saying you were totally cool with DC (or London) blanketing the city with surveillance cameras because, hey, you're outdoors, so no expectation of privacy? And you'd be fine if the police trained a camera in the open (uncurtained) windows of your house, as well?

by ah on Sep 22, 2009 3:30 pm • link • report

@david- good point and one that supreme court I believe has (wrongly)argued. Again though it's a question of degree, would you be ok with a police officer on every corner of the city with a radar gun? How about technology that scanned your license plate at various points on a road to automatically send speed info to the government in real time as you drive? Technology like that is not far off if not here already. To take it a step further, how about tech that scans your eyes to identify and track you as you walk down a public street? That isn't sci-fi, the tech is available and used today. Old views of privacy and what's reasonable and what's invasive will have to be revisited as tech advances. The argument for more government surveillance is always to protect us from ourselves and save lives, where do you draw the line?

by Josh on Sep 22, 2009 3:31 pm • link • report

If I could limit the discussion to DC surface streets for a moment - those streets design to accommodate motor-vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. using the right-of-way simultaneously, either sharing the same space and/or separate distinct spaces at anyone time.

I'll give a great example of how effective a speed camera can be, first hand - C Street, NE between 21st and 16th Streets. I have personally witnessed traffic calming and slowing down due to a speed camera.

When RFK was built back in the mid-60s, DDOT created a 5 vehicular lane (plus 2 parking lanes) expressway along a strictly residential street that includes a Junior High School. The street geometry undoubtedly was design to handle a large vehicle capacity (today, about 20,000 daily west-bound vehicles) and to move those vehicle quickly in and out of Capitol Hill. The street is wide, straight and has no motorist sight-barriers for the full 5 blocks.

Since we successfully petitioned MPD to deploy a mobile speed camera to enforce the 25mph, 15mph during school-hours or when school-children are present, (MPD will only enforce the 25mph), MPD has issued over 13,000 speeding citations in just 18 months. This mobile speed camera is only deployed intermittently during the week and rarely on the weekend. West-bound traffic has significantly slowed and contrasts by east-bound vehicles still speeding out of Capitol Hill. The comparison is amazing!
After years of community lobbying, DDOT is beginning a C Street, NE (from 21st to 16th Streets) study and preliminary design (Toole Design is the consultant) to hopefully create the first "green street" and a "traffic calming model for neighborhood streets".

There are many of you who could lend expertise and information to make this a truly great project, for all users, so please visit our website - cstreetneproject.blogspot.com - throughout the study and preliminary design (probably the next 6 months). The first DDOT public meeting will be held in the next 6-8 weeks. Please note that there are no allocated construction funds yet and DDOT does not want to limit the design alternatives strictly based on some $ figure anyways, though that will obviously come into play later on.

Really appreciate the help!

Ken G.
cstreetneproject@gmail.com

by C Street, NE on Sep 22, 2009 3:46 pm • link • report

In all the commentary, let's remember an important statistic:

451 = number of words from Gary Imhoff, self-appointed professor of civics to us all, in his latest essay holding forth on motorists' rights.

0 = mention of pedestrians, or bicyclists.

by Joel Lawson on Sep 22, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report

Ah:

Elected officials don't set speed limits, but they enact the laws giving engineers the authority to do so. If there weren't a legal basis for speed limits, the police couldn't ever write anyone tickets for surpassing them.

As for police who don't enforce unreasonable laws: The reasonable thing would be to change the laws.

by BeyondDC on Sep 22, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report

The city could close the budget gap in a matter of days by putting a speed trap, I mean, camera on North Capitol Street between Michigan and Fort Drive. It's a multi-lane divided highway with a 35 MPH posted limit. I'd rather they just raised the limit, though.

by Ward 1 Guy on Sep 22, 2009 4:25 pm • link • report

I think Mr. Imhoff can complain as loud as he wants but he won't get very far. Plenty of people all over the world have argued against them and have they ever succeeded in getting cameras removed? Bottom line is, these aren't VIDEO cameras. They are still photography cameras which are only triggered to take a photo when you commit a crime. If you don't want your photo taken, then don't speed and you have nothing to worry about.

On DC's congested streets, speed cameras are the only way to go. Most streets would be come to a complete standstill if patrol cars tried to pull over drivers that were speeding. 16th street NW really really needs them.

by ogden on Sep 22, 2009 4:44 pm • link • report

Trust me. After three decades in journalism, I've learned that when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money.

The District government is running a $666-million dollar deficit over the next two years - a helluva number - and the unspoken issue in Imhoff's piece is how a big city government (and we all know what that means) could be raising revenue today like them good 'ol boys used to do in Ludowici and Perry, Georgia back in the '60s and '70s!

The Virginia and Maryland Congressional delegations THINK they've outlawed the commuter tax. But if you're driving in from the 'burbs along NY Avenue, North Capitol Street, MacArthur Blvd, or a host of other gateways to the city and you see that brief little flash of light, you've hit Jim Graham and Adrian Fenty's Cash Call Jackpot. As Sheriff Goober used to say, "you're in a heap of trouble, boy." The bill's in the mail.

Thank you for your contribution.

By the way, wonder which jurisdiction Imhoff calls home.

by Mike Silverstein on Sep 22, 2009 5:04 pm • link • report

Are you saying you were totally cool with DC (or London) blanketing the city with surveillance cameras because, hey, you're outdoors, so no expectation of privacy?
Yes, they already do.

And you'd be fine if the police trained a camera in the open (uncurtained) windows of your house, as well? Nope, that's illegal.

Again though it's a question of degree, would you be ok with a police officer on every corner of the city with a radar gun? As a cyclist, I would welcome it, but for the incredible inefficiency.

How about technology that scanned your license plate at various points on a road to automatically send speed info to the government in real time as you drive? Technology like that is not far off if not here already. To take it a step further, how about tech that scans your eyes to identify and track you as you walk down a public street? That isn't sci-fi, the tech is available and used today.

I think if you look at United Staes vs. Knotts, you'll see that tracking surveillance is limited to primitive technologies and that in People vs. Weaver this standard was upheld (by NY State). So as there is a difference between simply eavesdropping and electronic spying there is a difference between tracking someone by observation and high tech tracking. Personally I'm not comfortable with the kind of tracking the Supreme Court allowed in Knotts - not without a search warrant. But I'm glad that it is limited in scope. So no, I wouldn't be OK with being tracked around town without a search warrant. But I don't think the speed camera violates People vs. Weaver. And since nothing happens until you trigger the speed sensor (which has a big cushion I would note) I think that's enough for probable cause.

by David C on Sep 22, 2009 5:27 pm • link • report

> Most streets would be come to a complete standstill if patrol cars tried to pull over drivers that were speeding.

This is a really excellent point.

by BeyondDC on Sep 22, 2009 5:29 pm • link • report

So the alternative is that MPD doesn't enforce traffic laws, which in turn results in A) implementing these controversial cameras (speed and red light), and B) making DC streets a zoo for all the other traffic violations that cannot be captured via camera.

by Froggie on Sep 22, 2009 7:02 pm • link • report

Not to devolve this discussion into a court case analysis, but David I suggest you check out the recent District 4 Court of Appeals case that ruled that GPS tracking (by sticking a tracker on the bottom of a person's car) is ok without a warrant. The ruling that this type of surveillance is permissible without a warrant should raise all sorts of red flags. The ruling concluded that tracking someone's movements via GPS is no different from ordinary human visual surveillance, which is legal. It was also legal, the ruling found, for the police to secretly attach the GPS to the person's vehicle because they attached it to his car while it was parked in the driveway- which is considered a public place, and therefore no violation of privacy had occurred.

As tech becomes cheaper, speed cameras are just the leading edge of this country using machine witnesses for law enforcement, which people should be very uncomfortable with. Not to mention the notoriously inaccurate nature of the process itself. Tough to contest something when a machine is the only witness and the ticket comes three weeks late in the mail. I cant remember what I did last night, let alone that long ago. Due process is another right we seem quick to give up.

I'm all for reducing speeding and reckless driving and saving lives, but I think we can do it and we can tackle a host of other societal problems without sacrificing our constitutional rights.

by Josh on Sep 22, 2009 7:05 pm • link • report

mike silverstein: imhoff lives in columbia heights, and is the self-appointed shadow-mayor of washington, DC. a legend in his own mind.

by IMGoph on Sep 22, 2009 7:19 pm • link • report

I'm fundamentally opposed to red-light and speed cameras, but they function well as a commuter tax, so i'm not entirely against them.

by RD on Sep 22, 2009 9:41 pm • link • report

I don't see the problem with driving 35-40 mph in a city where the speed limit is 25. After all, if we assume that everyone is in a car, and obeying all relevant traffic laws, the chances of serious injury are acceptable.

If someone is *not* in a car, we have to ask ourselves, "What exactly are they doing walking around? Planning a burglary?"

by ibc on Sep 23, 2009 9:31 am • link • report

The city could close the budget gap in a matter of days by putting a speed trap, I mean, camera on North Capitol Street between Michigan and Fort Drive. It's a multi-lane divided highway with a 35 MPH posted limit. I'd rather they just raised the limit, though.

Exactly! Jack it up to 50!

Of course, that doesn't do much for cyclists who want to use it as a north-south route, but screw 'em, you'd have to be a lunatic to ride a bicycle on that stretch of road. Folks drive too fast!

(I'm getting dizzy...)

by ibc on Sep 23, 2009 9:41 am • link • report

I am upset with all of you holier than thou people.
Most of you don't drive and if you do it is 5 miles a week.

I am here from out of state. In April I was in NW (north of GT) for the first time in like a year. It was dark and rainy. I thought I was going 35, as I driving behind a DC police car. He pulled off. Maybe I saw some kind of flash but I don't remember for sure. I get back home like a month later and had a ticket - which was doubled because I hadn't received it.

Fast forward. Back in DC after 5 months and being out of town - job hunting. First time in DC since the April ticket - I am on I-395 in the dawn/morning. After the construction from VA, traffic thinned and I was driving w/ traffic. I see a police car on side of road I do a speed check - 55, still with traffic, noone slams breaks, police car doesn't budge, I assume I am fine. Almost 3 wks later - family back home calls. They checked my mail (which is supposed to be forwarded). I got a $150!!*#)*#() ticket for 55 ON A FRIGGING HIGHWAY? !?!?!? Ticket claims 61 in a 40 - a forty???

So I jsut went to check, but of course it is weeks later and see 40 mph on south side and 45 on the north side of I-395 in DC. At speed, from VA to Pennsylvania Ave and back, at 11 pm on a weekday, I was passed by every single car anywhere near me. 52 cars passed from the hidden police car /camera speed trap west of the PA entrance until the bridge to VA.

This is what you people consider fair?????? I am appalled. unemployed, broke and appalled.

**BTW years back I was in DC and got a ticket at a red light camera - the story is long but it cost me over 400 dollars (including a new tire and missed work) and 2 visits to DMV only to be PROVEN INNOCENT - when the COLOR pic showed the light was STILL YELLOW! At least 6 cars were in that intersection - how many of the other 6 (and all of the other light changes) went ahead and paid instead of the trouble and expense of fighting it?

In the past, also got a DC parking ticket for a broken meter - and I had a notarized letter from the police officer I reported the meter to, but still was fined.

by Justice on Oct 15, 2009 7:12 pm • link • report

sorry, justice. the law is the law. saying "i was going with the flow of traffic has never been a valid excuse. it wasn't when i learned to drive in michigan, it wasn't when i got a ticket for speeding in maryland, and it isn't here in DC.

by IMGoph on Oct 15, 2009 7:57 pm • link • report

Wow "IMGoph" and a sarcastic Sorry back at you.
Actually flow of traffic does come into play - see #2.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? "enforcement" is supposed to be based on LEGAL and legitimate rules - note my comment about the parking tickets and the city having to refund - and my pt about the BED red-light ticket. Also cities can make "illegal" traffic rules.

1. The LAW is that the speed limit on (urban) highways is supposed to be 55 - the point is that DC is changing the limits illegal to generate revenue.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/bystate/dc.html

2. DC Laws included the following:
Speed Limit:
I. No person shall drive a vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. D.C. Code '40-703(a) and CDCR 18-22-2200.10
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb

3. I finally got a view of the pic - the "sky" is black and it states it was SUNNY although the official weather says mostly cloudy and sunrise was supposed to have been 18 minutes before the time on the ticket. The other cars - all you can see are their lights.

4. It states it was on an entrance ramp - and I did not get on there.

And what about common sense and malfunctioning equipment?
I was working in Chantilly and there are traffic lights that never change. I sat through 4 changes - where the main road turned red and my light NEVER turned green. WTH was I supposed to sit there for 5 hours?

by justice on Oct 15, 2009 8:28 pm • link • report

well, justice, i'll be looking forward to your extended campaign to get the speed limits on DC interstates changed. make sure you keep us all up-to-date on the action. we'll make sure to celebrate your victory over the evil bureaucracy when all is said and done.

calm down. you clearly won the instances where you were wronged. but sometimes, you're the one who's wrong. take it as a lesson and slow down next time through, paying attention to the posted limits, not how fast the cop in front of you is driving.

by IMGoph on Oct 15, 2009 8:34 pm • link • report

Going with the flow of traffic may not be following the law, but it's definately safer than going at a speed different from the rest of traffic. Since the speed cameras are supposedly for safety, you'd think they'd reflect on this. Instead, it's just further proof that the cameras are purely a revenue generation tool and not a safety tool.

As for speed limits on DC freeways, 40 and 45 MPH limits are very much lowballing it, and are probably the main reason why speed limits are ignored, not just on the freeways, but on the side streets as well after one gets off the freeway. Raise them to something more proper, and I'd bet you'd have both better acceptance of them and better acceptance of speed cameras, which would then truly be catching the major speeders. 55 would be acceptable...no real need to go higher than that, but no need to go less than 50 except perhaps for the northbound 3rd St Tunnel.

by Froggie on Oct 15, 2009 9:01 pm • link • report

You really cannot help sounding condescending, can you?

"calm down. you clearly won the instances where you were wronged. but sometimes, you're the one who's wrong."

Actually I don't feel like I won in any of these cases.
And no - I am not wrong.

Just one example:

The red light ticket - showed up to my home out-of-state (all of my regular mail is forwarded, this didn't get forwarded) address so I got it late. Left work (was going to have to pay 2x for parking) to go request a hearing - I parked at a meter by the DMV. They made me wait, PAY for a hearing, since it was after their original due date, and schedule another date. Got out to my car and found a flat tire - a 3" bolt in the sidewall - unfixable. Had to replace a fairly new tire - miss more time from work to get a new tire. Went to the next hearing. They make you watch video saying essentially - we KNOW you are guilty - and that they check and double and triple check. I was protesting because I KNEW I had NOT run a red light - there were 6 cars in the intersection. When it was finally my turn - and I was not hopeful after hearing the other people get automatically found guilty - the magistrate says "DAMN - I am going to have to find you innocent". Well now I am p'ed off. (What does he mean, damn?) He admits that the light is yellow. I asked "what happened to "we check and we double check and we triple check":" He said, "we never see the picture in color until (or if) you come in to challenge it".
So not only did my INNOCENTLY getting ticketed cost me HUNDREDS of dollars, but what about the other 5 cars/drivers - and how long was this scam occuring?

I got a parking ticket at my university - while in grad school - for parking on the "sidewalk". I was in a gravel field parked against a telephone pole divider (laying on the ground to separate the parking spots). The student "magistrate" looked at me in my business suit and said - you look like you have plenty of money just pay the ticket.

I already mentioned the parking icket at the broken meter, above. Unfortunately there are more. But this already too long.

by justice on Oct 15, 2009 9:57 pm • link • report

@justice

It's a little ironic that you point out IMGoph as being condescending when you opened your first post with

"I am upset with all of you holier than thou people.
Most of you don't drive and if you do it is 5 miles a week."

I hope you enjoyed your visit to our lovely city and your interaction with our fine civil servants. As a resident, may I be first to thank you for your contribution to the general welfare and please come again. Your input is valuable to us, and I'm going to make sure I lobby my Councilmember to make life easier for out-of-town drivers.

Now THAT'S condecension.

by TimK on Oct 15, 2009 10:05 pm • link • report

No TimK that is an attempt to sound condescending - you'd actually have to BE superior not just attempt to be.

And typical avoidance - Don't answer the question - how much do you actually drive? People like the typical socialistic DCers want to create laws that apply to OTHER people - not rules that they themselves should actually have to follow or be impacted by.
It is like the old south and "outsiders" are targeted.
But since we "outsiders" are beneath you - I'd love to see DC run without all of the money, products and services generated/provided by the hundreds of millions who live outside of DC CITY limits.

While I don't actually live in DC - DC is not just a city is the the house of the Fed government. It is paid for my the other 95% of the country who doesn't live within CITY lines. (Thank God y'all don't have full representation in Congress - you already have too much power.)

by justice on Oct 16, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

Blow up the bridges and tunnels between DC an NOVA and tell me who is hurting more in 1 year. Oh right, all of those now unemployed NOVA people.

If you drive in on streets we pay for under the security of police we pay for and use, in general, all of the services we pay for and then drive home and pay taxes to wherever you're from, you aren't helping. How does that entitle you to break our laws?

I drive about 5000 miles a year, FYI. 0 tickets since 1998.

by David C on Oct 16, 2009 3:55 pm • link • report

Not true, you can use condescension without superiority. If you don't get that I can always use smaller words.

Oh, and I didn't answer the question because it wasn't a question. It was a statement requiring no response.

Now that you (kinda) asked the question, I put somewhere between 5-10,000 miles on the car, mostly on family trips. I normally drive about 3-5 miles a day, and often less than that. Normally, I walk and/or use the Metro. But roads aren't for cars, they're for people. Hard to see that when you're zipping by at 61 mph.

by TimK on Oct 16, 2009 6:12 pm • link • report

5,000 -ooooooo and most of that is likely outside the district - you know on roads OTHER PEOPLE PAY FOR.

3-5 miles a day - wait let me catch my breath -hahahahhahahhah - ok. 4 miles/day is 1460 a freakin year - like I said - make rules for OTHER people to follow!

I'm from what you people call fly-over country - and DC has so screwed up the economy that many have to come this way to get work. Only counting the miles for work (not the trips from back home) I was doing 80 - 90 mi/day. I think I have a wee bit more awareness of the roads than you.

Back to the main point though - the published laws are that DC's urban highways are supposed to have a 55 mph speed limit. Not a 40 olr other made up limits for revenue generating purposes.

(And ignore all my other examples like the tickets issued for yellow lights?)

by justice on Oct 20, 2009 11:24 am • link • report