LIDAR starts to get widespread use by Alameda county CHP

[hspder]

There you have it folks: since last week, on my I-580+I-680 commute I've seen at least 8 different CHP cars, parked on the right shoulder (at 90 deg) with LIDAR guns pointing straight at me. My faithful Escort has picked up the laser beam every time (probably too late, but I was lucky -- the first encounter I saw him before he pointed the gun at me, and from that point on I became extra careful), but it's not like they're hiding themselves or the guns. My car kinda grabs attention from them so they do always point the gun straight at me, even if they have 5 or 6 other possible targets.

Yesterday (Sunday 9/23) was particularly bizarre, since I had *5* encounters going west on 580 and South on 680. Before the Altamont Pass, after the Altamont pass, at Vasco Road, at the 580/680 interchange and then at the bottom of the Sunol Grade. Seems they are trying to recoup their investment before the end of the month. My friend was driving a few minutes behind me and she actually saw 3 of them take off and chase somebody, so they *were* going after the speeders, not "just monitoring".

So, unless you have effective laser countermeasures (they're illegal in CA, so I'm guessing not many of you have them), be VERY careful and watch out. Hopefully it will get better after the Quarter is over, but until then...

[Phillip559]

Seen any use on either 880 or 80? If so what areas?

Most of the Eastbay freeways seem really jammed up so I don't know how they catch speeders. However, in Solano County (around Vallejo) it is heavily used by the CHP.

[hspder]

Seen any use on either 880 or 80? If so what areas?

I don't regularly drive through 80 or 880... :-(

Most of the Eastbay freeways seem really jammed up so I don't know how they catch speeders.

The areas they picked are infamous for speeding, because they're immediately after choke points (bottlenecks); plus there are times of day where I680, and, especially, I580W, are not that bad.

But suffice to say the last few days (since they started the campaign) have had some of the worst jams in History, and actually more accidents (and more serious accidents) than usual; that's what happens when you scare people into driving like grannies.

However, in Solano County (around Vallejo) it is heavily used by the CHP.

Yes, as is in Santa Cruz. I don't complain too much about those, because a) Solano and Santa Cruz are not exactly safe places to go much above the speed limit if you don't know what you're doing (and most drivers really don't know what they're doing) and b) for the majority of people over there, $420 is spare change.

Going after people on the I580/I680 corridors, on the other hand, has nothing to do with safety: it's purely about making money at the expense of middle class Americans. We're talking about straight 8/10 lane freeways here; in any other country the speed limit would be 80 or more, and the Highway Patrol equivalent would probably be more concerned about REAL safety threats.

[Kevin93636]

But suffice to say the last few days (since they started the campaign) have had some of the worst jams in History, and actually more accidents (and more serious accidents) than usual; that's what happens when you scare people into driving like grannies.

And I'm sure you have statistics readily available to support your claim? How did you come to the conclusion more accidents happened and how were you aware of the severity of these accidents?

Yes, as is in Santa Cruz. I don't complain too much about those, because a) Solano and Santa Cruz are not exactly safe places to go much above the speed limit if you don't know what you're doing (and most drivers really don't know what they're doing)

I would venture a guess that you are one of those drivers you mention however I doubt you will admit it.

Going after people on the I580/I680 corridors, on the other hand, has nothing to do with safety: it's purely about making money at the expense of middle class Americans. We're talking about straight 8/10 lane freeways here; in any other country the speed limit would be 80 or more, and the Highway Patrol equivalent would probably be more concerned about REAL safety threats.

The fact is we are not in another country. What is your source that speed enforcement has nothing to do with safety and its purely about making money? I'm guessing you have no source and this is purely hyperbole. What exactly would you consider a REAL safety threat? In my mind it would be an overconfident self proclaimed driving expert who thinks they know all there is to know about performance driving yet has no background, experience or training to support it.

[FlyinZX-10R]

It might have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of traffic is travelling above the posted abitrary speed limit. The majority of drivers on the road know whats best for conditions, not some politicians in a room. Its called the "85th percentile rule". Now if most of the traffic is doing 85 or so and someone else is going 130, thats different. If the majority of people are going 85 and someone is doing 55, they are the road hazzard. The speed limit is set for lowest common driver. Instead of having a driving test of higher standards (like germany), the lower it so alot more people can get a license. hell, they want to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens who arent even supposed to be here.
Im not saying there shouldnt be a limit for conditions, but the limit is set too low just to generate revenue, and its a shame they use police resources for BS like this while real criminals are on the street.

[hspder]

And I'm sure you have statistics readily available to support your claim? How did you come to the conclusion more accidents happened and how were you aware of the severity of these accidents?

Yes, I do have statistics readily available. Do you think 511.org, for example, just pulls the info out of thin air? For this region (and I'm guessing for others, it's just that I live and work here, so this is what I know) there is a complete network of databases with information about traffic conditions (past and present), as well as detailed logs of every single accident (including number of cars involved, number of people involved, seriousness of injuries, and time it took to clear it out). A simple SQL database query can yield just about any statistic you can dream of (by the way, I'm a software developer so I know what I'm talking about).

For real-life use you can see for yourself, just go to 511.org and check the Predict-a-trip feature as well the current conditions map (with detailed info on all accidents). You can also check out traffic.com for even more accident info, and another source of current conditions.

Anyway, from the tone and content of your post, clearly, I've struck a nerve. That in itself speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[hspder]

I almost forgot about answering this one:

What exactly would you consider a REAL safety threat?

Interesting that you ask... Let give you a few examples, just based on what I've seen the last two weeks -- not a single of which cases had a CHP go after them (they were too busy giving speeding tickets)

Reckless drivers:

- DUIs
- Drivers cutting off people for no reason (actually ACCELERATING to cutoff the moment somebody turns on turning lights and starts moving)
- Drivers not checking their blind spot and/or not using their turning lights
- Drivers weaving through traffic like a bat out of hell, barely missing other cars
- Tailgating drivers

[Note: independent studies have shown that the five behaviors described above add up to be the root cause of 95% of freeway accidents in NoCal -- NOT speeding]

- 4 Drivers side-by-side taking all four lanes, basically becoming a "moving wall" (something the CA Driver's handbook SPECIFICALLY tells you not to do). This is unbelievably common, by the way, just as much as tailgating.
- Drivers completely ignoring emergency vehicles and not moving an inch instead of letting them pass

Bad Truck drivers:

- Truck drivers doing 75mph in the middle lane
- Truck drivers using the left lane on 205 in spite of a sign telling them not to
- Truck drivers using ALL the lanes on 580 during rush hour

Headlights infractions:

- Drivers with only running lights on at 8pm (in a pitch dark area)
- Drivers with NO lights on at 9pm (in another pitch dark area)
- Drivers with non-DOT-approved HIGH beams on (AND fog lights), blinding everyone (both drivers going the opposite direction AND drivers that were unlucky enough to be driving in front of them)

There's more, but I wanted to limit the list to the ones I saw since this wonderful CHP speeding campaign started...

In my mind it would be an overconfident self proclaimed driving expert who thinks they know all there is to know about performance driving yet has no background, experience or training to support it.

I'm sure you can back that up with some statistics -- where can I find them? 8)

Seriously, how can you possibly believe that for example, driving 85mph in a completely flat, straight stretch of freeway, with no cars within a mile, requires any special driving skills or is a safety threat, compared to driving 65mph?

The freeway speeding limits are a completely absurd, arbitrary limit that in no way takes into consideration any factors specific to a particular stretch of road -- much less the skill of a particular driver, or the car's active safety features, or even the car's weight! This is a fact; it's exactly what the law says, and the reason that you can't use a T&E survey to fight a speeding ticket given on a freeway (or present the car's specs, weight, or driver's skill, as a defense). This law is ancient, has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY (it doesn't take any actual safety factors into consideration -- at all!), and virtually all modern high-performance cars can be safely driven far above the speed limit as long as the driver is not being reckless (i.e., doing one of the things described in the top of this post).

Change the law to take into consideration factors like the road conditions, traffic, weather, the rest of the driver's behavior, car's performance (braking power, active and passive safety), car's weight, etc., and THEN it will become about safety.

The fact that the CHP would rather go out of their way (by spending a boatload of taxpayer's money and time) to enforce this ridiculous law (as it is now) than go after really unsafe behavior is what really ticks me off -- it shows a tremendous lack of good judgement, as does the fact that invariably CHP officers will pick on safe, high-performance sportscars before they pick on SUVs or pickup trucks (that are far more dangerous and hard to control); both facts are very disturbing considering that the justice system routinely takes law enforcement's judgement above the people's all the time.

[PMoth]

Wow, that leo got owned!!

[Kevin93636]

Quite the post hspder. From the sound of it, it seems I may have been the one to strike a never. But none the less, you do bring up some valid points that I will attempt to address. But first let me share with you. The most current statistics available are from 2005. They are from the SWTRS report. http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ They list fatal and injury collisions respectively by primary collision factor. If I go line by line of your post your theory of violations just don't add up to being more dangerous than speed with the exception of DUI. But the DUI statistics do not include the type of violation committed (associated factor) that caused the DUI collision. Whether it be speed, unsafe turning movement, etc...

DUI 857/14957
Unsafe lane change 79/8128 (includes changing lanes w/o signaling
Following too closely 7/4690
(The first 5 factors you list account for 3 primary collision factors or violations)
Vehicles driving side by side on the freeway does not constitute a violation of the California Vehicle Code. (unless the driver in the left lane is driving below the speed limit)
Truck speed 27/1497
Truck out of lane violations 0/0
Lighting violations 1/58

Total fatal collisions for above PCFs 971
Total injury collisions for above PCFs 29330

Unsafe speed 607/58336

In regards to the web site you mentioned, 511.org, I found it quite informative but it was unable to find the detailed statistics you made mention of.

Regarding your statement about driving 85mph on a completely flat straight freeway with no cars within a mile as opposed to 65mph...if that situation were to exist, speed alone in my opinion would not be a safety threat. But its highly unlikely a scenario like this would exist. With your experience of driving in the bay area, you know first hand it would be unlikely to be on a freeway without any other traffic. Because of this excessive speed presents a safety concern for everyone.

I have no statistics to back up my statement about overconfident, untrained drivers, thus my statement, "In my mind".

A couple of points about your statements on modern high performance cars. I will concur with your statement they can be driven safely above the speed limit. However, taking human factors into consideration, the vast majority of drivers do not possess the skills to operate vehicles like this. Especially considering the roadway conditions in CA and the amount of other traffic sharing the roadway.

You mention changing the law to take into consideration the road conditions, traffic weather drivers behavior, etc...This law, with some exceptions already exists. 22350 VC. Taking into consideration the car's performance and weight are very subjective factors.

Your statement that CHP Officers will pick on safe, high performance sports cars before they pick on SUVs or pickups is also a very subjective statement. I can say with absolute certainty that in my 22 years of experience as a CHP Officer I have never discriminated against certain types of vehicles in my enforcement activities. A violation is a violation.

I would pose this question to you. As a software developer, when it comes to software development issues, if given a choice, who's judgement would you look to? The general public who's computer skills consist of logging onto the internet or a software development professional who is familiar with development issues and has experience in the field? Of course the justice system takes law enforcement's judgement above the peoples....they're the ones with experience in the field.

In closing, I must say I read your rebuttal to my post with great enjoyment. Spirited discussion and opposing viewpoints are a staple to forum discussions. I look forward to your future postings. Until then, Stay Safe and Happy Motoring!

[Phillip559]

Quite the post hspder. From the sound of it, it seems I may have been the one to strike a never. But none the less, you do bring up some valid points that I will attempt to address. But first let me share with you. The most current statistics available are from 2005. They are from the SWTRS report. http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ They list fatal and injury collisions respectively by primary collision factor. If I go line by line of your post your theory of violations just don't add up to being more dangerous than speed with the exception of DUI. But the DUI statistics do not include the type of violation committed (associated factor) that caused the DUI collision. Whether it be speed, unsafe turning movement, etc...

DUI 857/14957
Unsafe lane change 79/8128 (includes changing lanes w/o signaling
Following too closely 7/4690
(The first 5 factors you list account for 3 primary collision factors or violations)
Vehicles driving side by side on the freeway does not constitute a violation of the California Vehicle Code. (unless the driver in the left lane is driving below the speed limit)
Truck speed 27/1497
Truck out of lane violations 0/0
Lighting violations 1/58

Total fatal collisions for above PCFs 971
Total injury collisions for above PCFs 29330

Unsafe speed 607/58336

In regards to the web site you mentioned, 511.org, I found it quite informative but it was unable to find the detailed statistics you made mention of.

Regarding your statement about driving 85mph on a completely flat straight freeway with no cars within a mile as opposed to 65mph...if that situation were to exist, speed alone in my opinion would not be a safety threat. But its highly unlikely a scenario like this would exist. With your experience of driving in the bay area, you know first hand it would be unlikely to be on a freeway without any other traffic. Because of this excessive speed presents a safety concern for everyone.

I have no statistics to back up my statement about overconfident, untrained drivers, thus my statement, "In my mind".

A couple of points about your statements on modern high performance cars. I will concur with your statement they can be driven safely above the speed limit. However, taking human factors into consideration, the vast majority of drivers do not possess the skills to operate vehicles like this. Especially considering the roadway conditions in CA and the amount of other traffic sharing the roadway.

You mention changing the law to take into consideration the road conditions, traffic weather drivers behavior, etc...This law, with some exceptions already exists. 22350 VC. Taking into consideration the car's performance and weight are very subjective factors.

Your statement that CHP Officers will pick on safe, high performance sports cars before they pick on SUVs or pickups is also a very subjective statement. I can say with absolute certainty that in my 22 years of experience as a CHP Officer I have never discriminated against certain types of vehicles in my enforcement activities. A violation is a violation.

I would pose this question to you. As a software developer, when it comes to software development issues, if given a choice, who's judgement would you look to? The general public who's computer skills consist of logging onto the internet or a software development professional who is familiar with development issues and has experience in the field? Of course the justice system takes law enforcement's judgement above the peoples....they're the ones with experience in the field.

In closing, I must say I read your rebuttal to my post with great enjoyment. Spirited discussion and opposing viewpoints are a staple to forum discussions. I look forward to your future postings. Until then, Stay Safe and Happy Motoring!

So far you have said nothing related to this thread and only proven yourself to be an ass in both these posts and in another thread. If you see increased use of speed measurement in an area during one period compared to a prior period of time its not really "speculation" but an observance of increased usage. Is that common sense or what?

Do you have a comment about Lidar use in Alameda County? If not then get the heck out and quit wasting our time with irrelevant information.