This is about human lives. Once you eliminate birth-defects, car accidents are the leading cause of death for people under 35. Particularly for young kids, who obviously aren't driving.
Car accidents kill 34,000 Americans per-year. That's like if 9/11 happened once a month every year.
And speed matters. Stopping distance and kinetic energy go up with the square of velocity. A pedestrian hit by a car going 20 mph will almost certainly live. A person hit by a car going 40 mph will almost certainly die.
Before 1995, the federal government restricted speed limits to 65mph and lower (and prior to 1987, 55mph and lower). When those limits were raised or lifted, those opposing the change howled about how many additional Americans would die with higher speed limits.
The decline in auto fatalities (and pedestrian fatalities) has continued, even as speed limits went up dramatically in many states.
Correct! The 55mph law was first started during the gas crisis of the 70s. Its impact on traffic safety has been argued back and forth ever since, but so far there is zero concrete evidence that the increase in speed limits has caused a likewise increase in fatalities. (I have heard some good-sounding arguments that 55mph on long stretches of road is actually more dangerous than 70mph on the same, but I cannot find any studies to back that up, either.)
I'm curious how that number has changed for people in the cars versus people hit by the cars.
I would imagine that the rate has dropped precipitously for people in cars, but has been rising for those outside the cars.
FWIW I've been hit twice as a bicyclist, both were the fault of the driver. One turned into me while I was in the bike lane and the other tried to overtake me and clipped the front of my bike dragging it under the front tire. I was very lucky both times.
Driving like an idiot while speeding causes accidents. Speeding itself does not cause accidents.
Speeding does mean that in the event of an accident, the outcome is likely to be worse for all involved.
And there's no excuse for speeding in a residential area, or anywhere you might see pedestrians (or expect them and be unable to see them). This qualifies as "driving like an idiot".
I'd like to clarify a bit on "speeding itself does not cause accidents". You're mostly right, but it's not strictly true. There are realistic cases where speeding itself will cause a crash, such as poor visibility where you're driving too fast to stop within the distance you can see, driving fast enough to lose control on poor surfaces, being too fast to take a curve, and such.
I don't know how significant it is, I just want to say this because people shouldn't think that they can go as fast as they want as long as they drive well. Sometimes you simply have to slow down.
(I got reminded of this last year when I wrecked my car by hydroplaning on the highway. Technically I was within the posted speed limit, but clearly I was going too fast for conditions. Speed definitely caused the accident unless you want to blame the highway department for poor drainage or mother nature for the weather. Which, of course, I do, but I still should have gone slower.)
> to stop within the distance you can see, driving fast enough to lose control on poor surfaces, being too fast to take a curve, and such.
Agreed, but I classify that as "driving like an idiot" - driving too fast for conditions is in a category beyond speeding. Part of driving well is knowing - outside of concerns for a ticket - when it's possible to speed safely (and by how much), and when it's not.
I doubt how anybody can claim they're "driving safely" when the only observer is oneself and there is no baseline to compare against. This is about as statistically meaningful as people buying homeopathy stuff because they "know" it works.
>I doubt how anybody can claim they're "driving safely" when the only observer is oneself and there is no baseline to compare against.
Don't we all get observed and evaluated by a driving instructor before being licensed (think about what that word means) to drive? I'd say that meets your criteria
In theory, yes. In practice, driving instruction and testing in the US is ludicrously inadequate. The driving test here is little more than making sure you're capable of writing your own name.
This attitude is exactly why I think that vehicular assault and homicide should be prosecuted even if alcohol isn't involved. Every jerk with a fast car thinks he's god's gift to driving and the rules shouldn't apply to him. Then when there's a crash it's described as an accident. In the overwhelming number of cases it wasn't an accident, it was negligence, often criminal negligence.
You want to drive fast go to a track, on the public roadways follow the damn law.
> You want to drive fast go to a track, on the public roadways follow the damn law.
The "jerks with fast cars" group that you're targeting is breaking the same laws that 99% of other drivers break. In some ways, other drivers are worse.
Nobody obeys posted speed limits, except on side streets. Very few people pay enough attention to their driving; they're mostly talking on cell phones or daydreaming or talking to a passenger. Jerks with fast cars, at least, are focused on driving. Collisions at those speeds may not be survivable, but I don't want to get into any collision at highway speeds; their driving patterns are more predictable, and I prefer them over distracted or ADHD drivers who make quick lane changes without proper awareness.
Yeah. I don't generally care too much if somebody's going a bit fast, so long as they aren't driving erratically. What does cause a lot of swearing and the occasional close call:
- People merging on or off the highway at unsafe speeds (usually, too slow), without looking and picking a spot in traffic to merge into;
- People "being polite" at intersections;
- People not using their turn signals;
- People cutting in traffic, swerving, cutting off other cars, tailgating, or otherwise driving too aggressively;
- People trying to beat the light;
- People talking on the damn phone -- I don't care who you are, you can't do that and pay full attention to the road at the same time;
- People daydreaming, hanging out with their passengers, otherwise not paying attention to traffic both ahead and behind them.
Fast drivers are almost the least offensive nuisance on the road.
Sure those other guys are in the wrong too. My point is that killing someone because you didn't want to take a cab home is horrific but so to is killing someone because it's fun to drive fast, to shave 15 minutes off a four hour trip, because you just have to know right now who won the packers game, or because the kids are bickering in the back seat. The resulting injury and death aren't the result of accidents but crimes. Crimes rather more serious than possessing a few grams of cocaine base I might add.
> ...but so to is killing someone because it's fun to drive fast...
How often do you think this happens?
The NHTSA has a talking points primer for prosecutors with a few numbers on unsafe driving. The numbers are outdated, but they give us something to work with: 13,000 people were injured or killed between 1990 and 1997 because of aggressive driving -- a broad category that includes not just speeding, but also tailgating, lane changing, and improper passing.
That's 2,000 people per year for that period, and since that period, the number of vehicular fatalities has fallen off of a cliff: "The 32,367 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...).
Every single time I have looked, I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever that doing 85mph on the freeway in safe conditions significantly increases the chances of injuring yourself or others vs. doing 70 in the same conditions.
Yet speeding is this one traffic behavior that people really seem to get riled up about.
I have a suspicion that the actual reasons for this are that speeders tend to be unrepentant, and that it's a flagrant breaking of the law -- it's visible and people notice it more than possibly any other driving habit. Those things together seem to trigger some people's moral crusader button.
I won't quite go so far as to defend speeding. I'm never the fastest driver on the road (anymore). But if someone really wants to get going about the dangers of speeding, I'll be happy to point out all of the other driving behaviors that are at least as dangerous -- probably at least one or two of which the person themselves is guilty of, as we all are.
Remember to properly keep apart the annoyances vs. the dangers in your head. People being overly "polite" in intersections are merely annoying. People on the phone are going to commit negligent homicide.
As a driver, it's easy to mentally group all the frustrations on the road together, when some are just annoying and some are potentially lethal.
>Jerks with fast cars, at least, are focused on driving.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I doubt speed is a good predictor of attention or skill. Poor drivers have a greater risk of causing an accident than skilled drivers at all speeds. We still punish skilled drivers the same as poor drivers because it's hard to differentiate between them. Take a driver of unknown skill who's driving 1 standard deviation above the speed limit. He could be above-average, and be just as safe as an average driver going the speed limit. He could also be below-average and believe he's safe - but would actually need to go one standard deviation slower than the speed limit to match the safety limit of the skilled driver. So, we punish them both the same, because we can't know.
This just raised the question in me how efficient speed limits are. Being from Germany with no speed limit on the Autobahn I expected to see at least a slightly higher number of road fatalities in Germany. A quick look at Wikipedia confirmed that speed limits in the USA and in Germany are roughly comparable besides the unlimited Autobahn where people driving at 130 mph and more is not uncommon. [1]
USA Germany
Towns 25 – 45 majority 31, some 18 - 43
Single Carriageway 55 62
Dual Carriageway 65 - 80 unlimited, 80 advisory
To my surprise I found the following numbers for road fatalities per million inhabitants in 2010. [2]
USA 105
Germany 45
Any ideas how this could be explained? Could it matter that Germany is way smaller and the way to the next hospital is often shorter?
More likely it's the lower number of driving-hours per-person. The longer you drive, the greater the odds that something can go wrong. Germany, like most of Europe, has dense old urban cities and good transit infrastructure compared to American suburban sprawl. That means the average German doesn't spend as much time behind the wheel, if at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if Germany is substantially more dangerous per-driving-kilometer than the USA, but with far fewer driving-kms per person.
Also, remember that in many locations the "speed limit" isnt' really the defining thing that controls how drivers handle the road - many dense twisty urban environments are tight-enough to navigate that drivers instinctively take it slow and never even approach the speed limit. This tremendously reduces the odds of a fatality, although it does make minor scrapes pretty common.
You might be spot on - 7,500 kilometers per capita and year in Germany (2011) and 15,000 kilometers per capita and year in the USA (2013). This gives the same ratio as the road fatalities do.
Delta-V, delta-t, crumple zone energy absorption and airbag/safety device deceleration capability matter.
The only energy that can do damage starts with the difference in speed between vehicles. Then you have to take into account how much time it takes for the difference in speed to reach zero (that's the delta-t). This is a combination of braking (if any), grinding, sliding (tires sideways, rubbing against barriers, etc.) and crumple-zone deformation. And then you have safety devices such as airbags and seat-belts which are mostly about reducing the rate of deceleration.
Of course, initial velocity is important. However, focusing on that alone, I think, is focusing on the wrong variable.
Road conditions, for example, are crucial. I've ridden in taxis in Munich at 180 mph. The roads and traffic supported it. No issues. On the other hand, a couple of months ago I was on a BMW on the north-bound 5 fwy just before the Grapevine. I started a lane change when a crack/level difference between the lanes grabbed the tires. This caused a violent unintended lane change. Had my reflexes been any slower or had another car been there it could have been a horrible accident. I wasn't going much faster than 60 or 70 (I was about to get off the freeway to get gas). And, BTW, this is a section of the 5 that was repaired under the American Reinvestment (...) act. Well, they actually managed to cause more damage rather than repair the road. On this section of the 5 it feels like you could loose you kidneys even while riding in a minivan.
The people you run into may not have crumple-zones. Anywhere but the interstates/expressways you have to consider pedestrians as well. Even rural highways have pedestrians and cyclists.
Even on the interstate, there are road workers, tow-trucks, and (ironically) police-officers pulled over. For them? Delta-V is just V. And they do have to get out of their vehicles to do their work, so crumple zones are irrelevant too.
And this isn't hypothetical - accidents when pulled-over on highways are a major cause of death for all of those professions.
There's a fine balance here; speed isn't necessarily a problem, but speeding in the wrong places/at the wrong times. It's all about driving to the given conditions, which sadly many people do not do.
Speeding in a residential area is a lot worse, for the reason you described. New York City's speed limit of 30 is way too high (should be 20, without the 10mph tolerance). Most highways are underposted and should be 70-90.
Bizarrely, 40mph in a residential zone is a minor offense while 100mph on the freeway (which isn't exactly good, but not as dangerous as it sounds with a good car) with zero traffic can cost you your license in almost any state, and put you in jail in some.
The difference between a 60mph collision and a 100mph collision is significantly larger than the difference between a 20mph collision and 30mph collision.
In fact, with a lot of today's technology, a 20mph collision can be avoided by collision detection systems... and 30mph collisions are effectively transformed into 5mph collisions automatically.
But nothing is going to save your life from a 100mph collision.
Formula One drivers have HANS to prevent their necks from snapping in half in those crashes.
Beyond just roll cages and crumple zones... Formula One drivers have far more restrictive seatbelts and safety measures than the typical driver.
The fatality rate for the typical on-the-road driver reaches ~100% at 65mph collisions. With racing-level safety equipment and car design... sure, it can get better. But that sort of stuff is irrelevant from a public safety perspective.
"Velocity Change and Fatality Risk in a Crash–A Rule of Thumb" by Joksch. When collisions result in a Delta-V of 65mph, collisions are on the order of 70% fatal.
The fitted curve predicts the fatality rate to be ((delta-v / 71) ^ 4), suggesting a 100% death rate at 71mph.
Dropping down to 65mph drops your fatalities to 70%. Dropping down another 5mph to 60mph drops you to 50% fatality rate. The 5mph after that is a 36% chance of fatality.
So the 65mph limit is a rather magical number in terms of surviving a worst-case scenario. Going above that, fatalities go up dramatically. Going below that... fatalities are significantly lower.
it would also imply that a collision with someone where both of you are going 32.5 miles per hour and hit each other head on would end in near 100% fatality.
That said, I would believe that a head-on collision at around those speeds has a high chance of fatality being that it's a 130mph collision.
They crashed a 100mph car into a wall, a 50mph car into a wall, and then two 50mph cars into each other.
I suggest watching the videos to visually see the proof. The 50mph vs wall is similar to two 50mph cars crashing into each other.
32mph vs 32mph car would have a very low chance of fatality, although the two cars would probably be totaled. When I say ~65mph as a problem, that is the 65mph vs 65mph cars hitting each other head on... or 65mph vs a tree / wall / bridge (which has an equivalent chance of death)
Remember, the kinetic energy of you and your car goes up with the square of your speed.
You made me think for a few more moments on the issue.
The reason 2 cars hitting each other is similar is more due to their mutual crumple zones, so they're helping each other slow down at the same time.
I suspect this would also be dependent upon the car, since newer cars have better crumple zones to help survive accidents better. There's a lot of details that go into actual damage. Most people, when they're in an accident, don't go headlong into a wall. They hit a pothole and spin out, or nudge another car and go spinning, or hit a side wall at an angle, where their speed toward the wall isn't actually 65 mph, and so on.
At the end of the day, it's not that 65mph is the near-death number, as far as car speed is concerned, it's more, as everyone else has been saying, the delta-v. The easiest way to hit 65mph in that way is hitting a tree head-on, or wall head-on. On the freeways, this isn't likely the case, and even the edges of roads where two roads split and there's a barricade are protected by several crunch zones in the road itself.
Edit: ah, I didn't notice that you had been saying delta-v as well. Either way, I still think I follow what you're saying now
I think he's talking about 65mph delta-V, referring to the change in velocity at the (nearly instantaneous) time of collision. Two cars rubbing like that won't produce a 65mph delta-V in the way that a brick wall will. It might be 5-10 mph, which will be enough to shock people but not fatal. He's right that 65 mph delta-V is almost uniformly fatal.
Likewise, if you jump out of a moving vehicle at 65mph, you'll get banged up badly but might not die, because you don't lose 65mph of speed the first time you hit the ground, since you're hitting it obliquely. On the other hand, if you jump from enough height to reach 65mph and hit the ground directly, you're almost certainly dead.
I think it goes without saying that if you are in a crash at 100 mph, you don't live. If it's a brick-wall type crash, you probably don't live at 50 mph.
I'm not saying that there's any good reason to go 100+ mph. In general, I think it's a terrible idea. I'm saying that it's not as bad in terms of bulk risk-to-life as 40 mph in a residential zone.
>> Most highways are underposted and should be 70-90.
Maybe in the middle of Montana or Texas where it's 50 miles between towns, but not anywhere with off/onramps. People are very bad at merging and it'd be very difficult for many vehicles, especially trucks to get up to speed if 90 was the limit.
That's what on-ramps are for. If traffic is congested enough to demand merging (rather than just making sure the road is clear), you shouldn't be driving at 90mph. On the other hand, you probably shouldn't be driving at 60 either. Speed limits should be limits, not averages, or worst-case.
You make a good point when it comes to merging. Speeds of 90-120 mph are reasonably safe on German autobahns, because people have a regimented driving style (absolutely no passing on right, but the left lane really is the fast lane) and follow it to a T. Most Americans aren't trained to drive those speeds, though, nor do they follow lane discipline.
If I weigh 200 pounds am I more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash than if I way 150?
A car that weighs more is safer because its velocity changes are slower (barring collision with an immovable object) and because it will usually have better crumple zones that absorb more energy before turning the passenger compartment into a compactor.
If higher kinetic energy or momentum caused higher lethality, heavier people would die more often and/or heavier cars would be more lethal (for its own occupants) in wrecks at the same speed.
Since it's not always possible to know what speed a car was going when it crashed, and since I haven't found any tables or graphs of either speed or KE [or momentum for that matter] vs lethality, I doubt there's enough data to draw any conclusions about KE being better at predicting lethality. I don't understand what the focus on collision energy is for.
Crumple zones can be independent of weight.
A lighter car is more able to stop (less energy for brakes to dissipate) or avoid a crash (can sustain higher cornering forces, tires being the same).
45 vs. 25 mph in residential zone: child runs out in front of you, hit the brakes but you can't stop in time, hit him still going 30mph and kill him... vs. you stop and don't hit him.
100 vs. 65 mph on freeway: you certainly die vs. you probably die, depending on the accident. Freeway accidents are very bad at either speed. Luckily, there shouldn't be any pedestrians, children running into the street, or bicyclists.
The danger of freeway speed has more to do with differentials. Accident risk goes up 2x every 15-20mph of raw speed but 2x every 3 mph of speed differential (in either direction). If you're in traffic and driving 100 mph, you're probably an asshole because most people won't be, but it's the speed variance (and weaving, tailgating, and other asshole behaviors) that makes it dangerous.
Don't know if it's just me, but for the three months that I lived in NYC, I did not see a single speed trap or cop that batted an eye at speeders (and there are many who drive way too fast).
None of those will exceed 20mph - public transportation and biking (presumably) follow the speed limit and the average human running speed is 5 to 8 mph. Unless it's a subway or a train.
In a city center, your average speed will be substantially less than 20mph anyway no matter how fast you drive (unless you violate laws, running through lights and speeding) due to congestion, traffic lights, etc. A 20mph isn't going to make much of a change to average travel speeds.
Most likely, however, you're not going to be driving 20 miles in a city center. If you're driving more than 10 miles, you'll probably want to use a highway, and the US highway system is extensive enough that you can.
As for biking, I have less of a problem with people biking over 20mph in the city. (However, you're correct that, in practice, there's no way someone's going to average 20mph for a city bike commute. Most people aren't in good enough shape to sustain 20mph on the flat.) I regularly hit 30-35mph on downhills (say, Central Park at the north end) because I know what I and the bike can handle. Bikes are small and agile (it's easy to swerve and avoid hitting someone) and much less massive than a car.
My grandfather is a retired police chief from a major metro. When I purchased my car (which has over 400 horsepower, so I like to... play), he told me to become part of the highway patrol or police charity organization. He told me when he was in law enforcement, any member of these organizations were treated "much more lightly" than others.
For only $25 or something like that, you can get a piece of paper you can put in your wallet to show you're a member. For around $2,000, you can get a license plate frame.
He said even with the piece of paper, if you're pulled over, you have a pretty good shot of being given a warning. You just need to make sure you show it to them when they pull you over.
With the license plate, he said he would never pull over someone with the license plate, because law enforcement doesn't have enough money as it is and they'd rather not piss off those who have money to donate.
I didn't really believe him (grandfathers and all), but I donated anyways (for a piece of paper, not the license plate). Now I see this article, and I'm starting to think he was serious.
That doesn't sound entirely far-fetched. In the neighborhood I grew up in, there were about 4 or 5 different neighbors who worked for the police over the years and I distinctly remember three of them giving either my father or brother similar advice.
A friend of my older brother later went on to become a police officer and bought a house three houses down from my parents. He actually mentioned to my sister that if any of us needed out of a ticket, to give him a call. My father, being reckless as he is, would often get tickets that would be dismissed. Every time he would wind up mowing the lawns of the neighborhood police or otherwise doing some handiwork or helping fix a car or something similar. He flat out told me the cops would talk to their fellow officers and the tickets would be dropped per discretion of the officer.
Somewhat related, many of my friends I went to school with went on to join various branches of military. A while back he told me how a police officer noticed a military decal of the truck and flat out told him he wouldn't give him a ticket because of it.
It is all just anecdotal "evidence", but officers are humans just like you and I and will certainly do things to their benefit, like letting off someone who makes donations to a cause that benefits them. Is it really a stretch to extend the more or less "We protect our own" mentality to rich donors?
My sister dated a cop for a while, and he offered to give her a PBA Card (Police Benevolence Association, what everyone calls the "Get out of jail free" card). She declined, not because she was particularly honorable or had an aversion to corruption, but because she said she would feel too awkward using it.
"What do I do? When they ask me for my license do I just...hold it out and say 'let me go please'?"
Varies per cop though. Some cops don't like the idea of being bought out, so you can really piss them off.
It certainly isn't nearly as bad as what I've seen in other countries however... where you simply pull out a few (hundred) pesos and the cop lets you go.
Years ago in NY, an acquaintance showed me his "mini shield" which was just that, a small version of a NYC police shield (badge) that he clipped onto the inside of his wallet.
The story I was told was that police officers were given a number of these mini shields for their family members. The idea was that if the family member was asked for ID by another cop, presumably for doing something wrong, opening their wallet would reveal the mini shield and get the person a little (or a lot) of leeway. Wink, wink.
Grew up with both parents in law enforcement. The one time I risked name-dropping my mother in another county about an hour away, I lucked out and the guy knew her and gave me a warning - and I was in a vehicle with out-of-state plates (had come up to visit).
Friend of mine is a county cop near Houston. He told me, "The bigger the stack of 'I Donated to the 100 Club' stickers or whatever on their back window, the bigger the chance they're going to be a dick and they'll get a ticket anyway."
I'd say that having a Texas Mason license plate (not frame), being polite, saying "Sir" or "Ma'am" as appropriate, and handing over my CHL (as required by law) with my license/insurance - showing that I've undergone a background check already - has more of a chance of getting me out of a ticket than any stack of stickers.
Unless I run into an officer that is anti-CHL - but so far, that hasn't happened. Had one ask me "Sir, do you have your weapon on you?" "No sir, I'm not allowed to have it on property at work." "Well, you never know when you might need it."
My grandfather had at least two pistols on him on any trip out of town. I'm guessing that's the license he had considering he was 82nd (later 101st) Airborne and then head of an AP (Air Force MP) outfit.
You don't need a CHL to have a firearm with you while traveling in Texas.
Wikipedia explains it well: "Gov. Perry also signed H.B. 1815 after passage by the 2007 Legislature, a bill that allows any Texas resident to carry a concealed handgun in the resident's motor vehicle without a CHL or other permit.
The bill revised Chapter 46, Section 2 of the Penal Code to state that it is in fact not "Unlawful Carry of a Weapon", as defined by the statute, for a person to carry a handgun while in a motor vehicle they own or control, or to carry while heading directly from the person's home to that car.
However, lawful carry while in a vehicle requires these three critical qualifiers:
(1) the weapon must not be in plain sight (in Texas law, "plain sight" and "concealed" are mutually exclusive opposing terms);
(2) the carrier cannot be involved in criminal activities, other than Class C traffic misdemeanors; and
(3) the carrier cannot be a member of a criminal gang."
I've always wondered if it would be worth the government actually creating a "license to speed". The same as you can get a license to drive a lorry or a motorcycle, why isnt there a license with a proper test that trains you specifically on driving fast. Then when you're on the motorway only you can go up to 100mph instead of 70mph (UK), if the camera's get you, it first does a check on your plate to see if you have a proper license and then decides on that if you get a ticket.
Cars are the safest they've ever been and are only going to get safer, unfortunately i think that driving ability is getting worse because of technology that keeps us safe in cars but i think an actual test to demonstrate you are a good driver would help. Hell, even make it only valid for 1 year and you have to sit the test again, and the test costs £5,000. You'll STILL get plenty takers and hopefully make the road safer for the people that are going to speed regardless anyway.
I believe the biggest danger with speeding is related to the speed difference between various vehicles on the road, than the actual speed itself. So what you're suggesting would make it more dangerous, not less, with different groups of vehicles moving at significantly different speeds than others they're sharing the road with.
I would be willing to take a stricter driving test and have my vehicle subjected to higher inspection standards if I could be permitted to drive faster than the speed limit. Sure, some people and some cars can't safely do it, but why not allow those that can to do so?
Probably lack of incentive to change the laws. Getting anything done in the government is tough and time consuming - Who's going to champion the cause of letting certain people with faster cars be able to drive another 10-20 mph faster versus other issues their constituents may have?
I was hoping as well. It seems like you might be able to do it with a decent number of frames, a year, and some sort of OBD+GPS log to measure speeding.
It seems like it would be hard to do from say, data relating to getting pulled over by cops etc, since they may not pull over someone with one of these frames. But if you could compare frame owners vs everyone else, it could be interesting.
> The CHP 11-99 Foundation has donated over $21 million in emergency assistance to the families of police officers, particularly officers killed in duty
Why do Police officers (and families) need donations to care for them?
Anyone who is proud of speeding should come hang out and I'll throw punches near your head just out of range. It's cool I have it under control; it will bring me some pleasure and you will only be at risk if you get in my way or if someone dumber than me follows my example doesn't have as much control.
OK well when people need to do martial arts to get to work then we can talk. And btw in that world, speeders would be the people who swing unsafely fast while practicing with common folk.
Since a lot of the discussion has moved towards the relative safety of speeding, I'd be curious to see a break down of accidents and fatalities, by absolute speed, by in-excess speed, and by roadway type.
If I had to guess (having been in a number of accidents caused by other people) is that accidents are more common at lower speeds (because they are at intersections and other conflicting right of ways where you are more likely to be going slow) but fatalities are more likely at higher speeds where the safety systems fail to protect those involved.
However high speed accidents are not automatic death sentences as some posters have implied. I was in a head on collision on a small two lane residential street with no other traffic. Both vehicles were going 35mph, so effective collision speed was ~70mph. I was on a motorcycle and the oncoming truck was on a cell phone. He veered into my lane, and I tried to move left but parked cars limited my ability to avoid him. After the collision, I flew for a distance, and on landing my head hit the point of the curb. The two things that saved my life was (obviously) my helmet--without it, by brain would have been on the street--and I had crash bars that were severely deformed after the accident, but they kept my left leg from getting pinned between the bike and the truck.
So relatively high speed accidents can be survivable, especially with modern technology. The only injury I had was a badly sprained hip.
If you're rich enough to spend $2500 on speeding ticket insurance, putting away $50,000 for an insurance deposit isn't a big deal, so no, that $50,000 deposit costs the same as it did.
I find it very likely that when the foundation issued these license plates they knew people would donate to get them in order to avoid some speeding tickets. This probably resulted in a lot more funds raised than if they gave away jackets, hats, or something like that. Thus, it was clearly in 11-99's best interest to do this.... And I don't even think it's a bad decision. Sure, some more people get off on speeding tickets, but the additional money raised allows 11-99 to better support the families of officers in times of crisis. At the end of the day, more of the latter seems a lot better to me than less of the former.
Things like that only work to a point. I had a good friend who liked to drive fast and had a nice BMW with a purple heart license plate. He got out of a lot of trouble with that, until an incident where they revoked his license, and he couldn't drive for a few years.
Right or wrong the police give preferential treatment to people who gave money, time, or blood to a cause they support, but only to a point.
Personally, I have a bronze star plate on my car, and I don't push my luck too much any more, but I also know for a fact it got me out of a ticket for an expired inspection.
I don't understand why reporters/investigators in articles like these bother asking such loaded questions to officials as, "Do officers give leniency to license frame bearers?"
I feel like, if you're in that person's shoes, even if you know damned well they do, saying "yes" would be equivalent to answering "yes" to, "Would you like to lose your job or at least be put on leave within the next week?"
People go to such amazing lengths to avoid getting a ticket, but it's very easy to speed and not get pulled over.
1) Don't drive stupid. It's perfectly possible to drive very fast without driving badly. If you're swerving a lot, accelerating then stomping on your brakes, jerking from lane to lane... it's an indication that you're not planning ahead and are therefore driving badly. You deserve to get pulled over. And for heaven's sake, don't race unless you're willing to get pulled. Be a little grown up.
2) Go as fast as you want - but don't be the fastest car on the road. Always let a cop-catcher run about a 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile ahead (don't tailgate them, that'll get you pulled over for speeding and being an ass).
3) Don't use a detector. They give you a false sense of security and will guarantee that if you do get pulled, you get a ticket. Not only that, 90% of the time no officer is going to leave the radar "wide open" on all passing cars - which means your detector won't go off until after you've been tagged.
4) Don't speed in residential areas. There's just no gain.
Bonus tips:
1) As much as possible, stay out of the left hand lane. That's just easy pickings right there. edit: that doesn't mean it's okay to zip around people on the right. Just don't sit there with the pedal on the floor. be there when you need to be - but don't be there when you don't .
2) When in an area that you can't see possible hiding spaces get adept at feathering your speed down a bit and letting a car (ok) suv (better) , van or truck (best) on the left side shield you from that spot. Edit: again to clarify this doesn't mean zip around on the right. You're actually going to be gong slower or matching these cars, preferably from two lanes away. If you don't have two lanes, don't do this.
3) At night it's especially easy. I don't know if it's the same in all staets ,but every one I've driven through cops have their headlights on while they wait. If you look far enough ahead - and you should be anyway otherwise you're driving poorly and deserve a ticket - you can see a copy waiting a half mile off or more.
4) If you think you've been tagged, don't slam your brakes. In addition to being a hazard, the cop has already tagged you - and the sudden flare of brakelights is a surefire giveaway to the fact that you know you were speeding. (This one is the hardest for most people...)
In the 1980s "A Speeder's Guide to Avoiding Tickets" came out, written by a state patrol officer. I think most of what I do up there is a variation on what's in that book. If you speed a lot but are willing to do so intelligently and safely, you should get it. It's excellent and still as valid.
Anyway - that got long-winded. TL;DR: speed smart and safe, don't be an idiot, and pay attention and you don't need to spend money on a fancy license plate frame. (Or a FOP sticker in other states...)
- Speeding ticket free (and driving fast and smart in muscle cars) for more years than I can recall.
How much time do you save by speeding? To me, speeding significantly, especially for short trips, is futile.
Say in a 20 mile commute, 14 miles is on the highway with a speed limit of 65mph, 3 miles is on a road with a speed limit of 45mph, and 3 miles is on a residential road with a speed limit of 35mph. Furthermore, to simplify this, let's say you only speed on the highway. Going 65mph will result in 12.9 minutes on the highway, going 80mph will result in 10.5 minutes on the highway. By speeding, you exposed yourself to financial risk, and yourself and others to physical risk in order to save 2.4 minutes.
Now, let's say you encounter 6 stop lights on your commute, each with an average red light time of 1 minute. Let's say on average, you get caught in half of them each time you make the trip and that there are no backups requiring you to stay at any given light for more than 1 cycle. So your average red light time per commute is 3 minutes.
You've now spent more time waiting at red lights than you have saved by speeding on your commute.
On long trips, speeding can save you hours instead of minutes, so it seems more justified. But for a savings of 2.5 minutes that can easily be negated by red lights or other drivers? Why put yourself and others at risk for such a small reward?
Then why not speed on a track, or some other closed environment?
I imagine that shooting guns at targets is fun too - but most people wouldn't find that to be an acceptable excuse for shooting guns at targets in a public park.
It's not a part of the American culture so much. I think it should be.
I also think speed limits (on highways) should be higher, or be condition-specific. ... and I think we should have better driver's ed in the States, and harsher penalties for drunk driving.
> Then why not speed on a track, or some other closed environment?
Because freedom.
> I imagine that shooting guns at targets is fun too - but most people wouldn't find that to be an acceptable excuse for shooting guns at targets in a public park.
What do you think the "we use them to hunt" justification is for the American love of owning guns? The overwhelming majority of people who trot out this justification aren't depending on a good hunt for any real productive purpose; they go hunting because it's fun.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with driving fast or hunting/shooting guns - I'm just saying there is a context in which those activities are not acceptable, and that context is when you are acting unsafely and subjecting other people to unnecessary risk.
Note when I say park, I mean a city park, not a state park or wildlife park or wherever hunting is actually permitted.
You do save time on daily commutes because you're not including the cost of getting stuck behind lines of dumb drivers. You don't always get to go a smooth 70mph. Going faster (even if just by 5pmh) can get you ahead of a car. That one car can make or break you, because they may be the one that forms a blockade across all lanes that inconveniences everyone behind them. If you're smooth about speeding you can use it until you're ahead of the pack, then you hit cruise control.
On long trips, I optimize speed to road and traffic conditions, as everyone does, but also to engine RPMs. If speeding is making you run 4000 RPM in your highest gear, you might want to slow down a bit (use your onboard MPG display to see the difference). Someone can check whether the time savings of having to make fewer stops for gas is worth it. The fuel consumption and engine wear savings certainly seems good to me.
Update: There is also aerodynamics to think about. Aerodynamic drag is almost twice as great at 70mph as it is at 50mph.[1]
There is a valid safety concern. On certain roads, people regularly speed 70 to 80 mph in a 55mph zone. It is honestly safer to be ~70mph than it is to be going the proper speed limit in these circumstances.
It's really not always about saving time as another has noted. Speeding is not a significant time saver on short drivers, and I don't think there's anyone who can dispute that.
As you noted on long trips it can make a large difference. That's the only place I tend to bother these days - when I'm doing it to save time.
People speeding in the far left lane don't bother me. Your advice to "stay out of the left hand lane" and have a "car... on the left side shield you" are bad, dangerous advice.
Pass on the left. If you're passing people on the right then you're driving dangerously. (With an obvious exception for the occasional person going 60 in the left lane that you're forced to go around)
I do a quite a bit of night driving. I'm always in the right hand lane on three lane roads. Night traffic is very light, so I won't change two lanes just to go around people that insist on driving in the middle lane when the right lane is empty.
1 and 2) So everyone should have to change lanes to get around you, but you shouldn't have to change lanes for anything?
3) Typical 3 lane highways have 4 actual lanes, the right most one being the breakdown lanes and can be used in an emergency. That means being in the middle lane gives you one lane to your left and two to your right, vs. one to your right and two to your left. Same difference, no added benefit.
Fair point. edited to reflect this, I didn't want to give the impression that you should ordinarily be zipping by folks on the right. On the other hand if you're two lanes removed and the middle lane is empty, it's reasonably safe.
If tickets for dangerous driving were given instead of for speeding, then people might optimize for what is safer, not just what would not give them a ticket.
I do all these and they seem to work. I have gotten pulled over in the last 10 years but only gotten warnings.
As an addendum, if you do get pulled over:
1) Remove your hat if you're wearing one.
2) Get your wallet out and put it on the dash as soon as you come to a stop.
3) Roll all windows down, turn on your interior lights, and shut your engine off.
4) Put your hands on the steering wheel until you need to reach for your registration.
5) Admit and deny nothing, which seems tough, but is actually easy, a grimace or a shrug is all the response you need to give to "I had you going 85hph".
This has worked for me in the past (gotten off with only a warning). Along with the hands on the steering wheel, engine off, interior light on, window down I might also add, ask the officer if you can reach for something before doing so.
Cop: "Can I see your license and registration?"
You: "It's in the glove box."
Cop: "Go ahead and grab it."
It's not about submitting to their authority, it's about doing things that benefit you in the end. You don't have to do any of this stuff, but don't complain when things don't go your way.
The whole glove box routine should be avoided. Fumbling for docs under stress is not where you want to be. Better to keep your insurance/registration in an envelope in the visor.
That's why you put your hands on the steering wheel. The officer walks up to the car, sees your hands, sees your wallet on the dash and puts 2+2 together.
Otherwise, when you reach behind your back for your wallet, the officer has no idea what's going to be in your hand when it reappears.
Yep, all excellent to do when actually pulled. Well almost - I disagree about number 2.
Instead I suggest: wait until they arrive then explain what you're going to do, and do it slowly. You can also - if you're charismatic - use that time to talk a bit. Not to make excuses, but just to talk.
You don't have to stay frozen. But if you want to have an easy time of things, it's not a bad idea to avoid doing things that might look a lot like reaching for your gun. A relaxed cop is usually a much friendlier cop.
A guy I know, his dad was paralyzed from the waist down, lives in a care facility and shits in a bag for the rest of his life because someone joker high on whatever didn't want to be arrested.
So folks might appreciate that a cop might be tense during a traffic stop.
This is OK advice except for the bit about don't use detectors. Quality detectors like the Valentine 1 will save you from tickets.
Yes, burst radars are very common these days and won't show up unless someone ahead of you gets lit up, but guess what? Unless you're alone on the freeway, there's a pretty solid chance someone ahead of you is gonna get lit up before you do and it will give you a warning to slow down.
I drove with a V1 for years and it saved me from many, many tickets. (I didn't get a single one the entire time I owned one.)
My point being; radar detectors are useful tools. It can be a worthwhile investment if you buy a good one and know how to make use of it.
(For anyone wondering, I sold my V1 to a friend when I decided the german sports car phase of my life was over.)
Remote detectors have the double advantages of stealth and better positioning of components.
Bel Pro RX75 Plus off the internet for a few hundred bucks and installing it was as easy as running a few wires.
Radar under the fiberglass hood at the very front of the vehicle, it's away from everything ferrous, LIDAR receivers|emitters in both front fascia vents and on the rear license plate frame further concealed by a generic-looking custom frame.
The display cannot be seen from any angle unless you slouch like a gangster in the driver seat. There's absolutely no trace, no cheezy over-stretched coil from the visor down that can be seen from Nevada.
I agree with you in the radar detector front, definitely beneficial. Where I live, with my detector, cops seem to just leave their radar on at all times, rather than targeting single drivers. My detector lights up 1/4 before I can even see the cop. Has saved me multiple times.
More importantly, a cop seeing a detector will often pull you over for the fun of "gotcha." Being HN, here's proof. My ex uni roommate is on CHP in Martinez. Copy & paste from iMessage: "LOL, definitely" Mostly, it's cop psychology is really all that makes the difference between getting hassled and not.
It's like, if you can avoid crashing through sufficient awareness and caution, why not save the money and avoid insurance? There's a risk <-> cost trade-off here, and on one side is higher risk lower cost and on the other side is lower risk higher cost.
> It's perfectly possible to drive very fast without driving badly
I do get what you're saying, and it's clearly true on some level, but your statement rings all kinds of alarm bells for me, most notably that almost everyone considers themselves a good driver, and many feel that their skill justifies that they be exempt from the rules. But people are terrible judges of their own skill, and I would urge anyone who feels justified in driving outside the normal speed range to seek independent verification that their driving skill is outside the normal range.
> 2) Go as fast as you want - but don't be the fastest car on the road. Always let a cop-catcher run about a 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile ahead
I have a name for them. I call them "forward probes".
If you know what you are doing you can actually "launch" forward probes. All you need is to identify a young driver in a hot or pretend-hot car and match their speed while driving next to them. I'm not talking about racing or speeding. Almost without fail some of these guys will punch it and take off like they have to prove something.
Having launched a "forward probe" you just keep it at a comfortable distance in front of you and enjoy the ride.
Yep, discovered this trick myself. It helps to have a muscle car, because then you're practically 'challenging' them by being next to them.
Edit: to be fair: when someone pulls next to me and sits there matching speed for a prolonged period I'll often pull ahead as well. That's not because I have something to prove, but just because I'm not comfortable being boxed in by someone apparently oblivious to the idea of 'escape routes'.
'course I also don't take off at max speed, usually just enough ahead to have a sizeable gap between us. And because people are people, that's typically enough that they'll drop back and cease matching speeds anyway .
I would throttle up in the right lane and not have a speed differential not too great compared to traffic, because someone that cuts you off to make an exit could be fatal.
Also, there are some areas, like near UC Davis, where a cop on 80 will stand behind the rise of an overpass berm to hide his vehicle around a bend and nab people using laser. Thankfully the twice this happened, laser jamming may have been allegedly deployed and he checked his gun for errors while I might have turned the alleged system off and coasted.
If someone were unlucky enough to have been pulled over:
If the cop is male, you can try a sob story ("I'll lose my job because I need to make FAA status") or actual sobbing. If the cop is female, emotional persuasion is less effective.
Also if someone happens to get a ticket, best move would be to be unmemorable as possible and fight it. There's a zillion technicalities because there are so many ways to screw up (not) measuring and writing the ticket.
Heck, a friend of mine even legally has no front license plate and gets out of every fix-it because a previous ruling allowed it. Mine has a front-center threaded tow-receiver hook frame, so you can guess where it's at most of the time. :)
You should also know what you can get away with in the area you are driving, and what they use for the traps. In upstate NY I could go 14 over an no one batted an eye, but cars going just a hair faster would get pulled over every time.
In PA the limit is closer to 8 or 9, and they pulled me over as part of a big trap with a cop hiding in the woods with a stop watch to measure the speed. The car that pulled me over had the lights on and was picking up speed before he ever saw me himself. That ticket had my speed at 83.426mph.
True and good advice. The more familiar you are with tolerences of the area, the more you can comfortably do.
But except in the case of specific speed traps where they're pulling over multiple people, "don't be the fastest car on the road" typically protects you from this. If there are no other cars on the road or if you are the fastest, then proceed with caution.
Addendum: tolerances tend to be lower if you're from out of state, so that's something else to be aware of.
Addendum 2: Some states really don't mess around so always know the rules. In Virginia for example, going over 80 , or 20+ over the limit (whichever is lesser) can actually land you in jail and at minimum mandates a court appearance.
When I got my ticket in PA they had 4 marked cars on rotation pulling people over. Having one guy who is faster in front of you wouldn't help much. I don't think that situation is typical though.
Ah yeah! very good one - particularly if you'r elooking as far ahead as you should be (particularly when driving fast, but all the time really) supposed to, this will often give you visible sign of an officer before you see them.
I'm curious now I've seen the word 'breaks' used quite often in car related topics (instead of brakes), is that a type-o/error or is it a local thing? It was also used in a (non quoting) reply...
I would disagree about the detector. Maybe in Cali or heavily populated areas, but in smaller-medium sized cities and most definitely rural areas they are nice and do work well if you will spend the money to get a nice one ($400-500.) It's not a for sure thing but they do a decent job at detecting a good ways out.
> 2) Go as fast as you want - but don't be the fastest car on the road. Always let a cop-catcher run about a 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile ahead ...
There's an old, fun phrase my dad used for this years ago: "let him beat the bushes, let somebody else rake the leaves, and you sit in the rocking chair."
i.e., don't be the fastest car in sight, and also don't the last in a line of fast cars. Just sit in the middle and take it easy.
I'm pretty disgusted that this comment has become the top post over the comment from pxtl about cars being the leading cause of death for people under the age of 35. Driving is a privilege and many hear are actively trading tips on how to abuse that privilege and get away with it.
I would hope that one day we have RFID chips in speed limit signs that cars can are obligated to read and electronically limit the speed of the vehicle.
I speed for my own safety. 90% of the people I see driving just live in their little box, tunnel visioned directly ahead, with no situational awareness of the cars around them. I feel safer speeding ahead and creating as much space as possible than sitting inside of a block of lemmings.
If you don't drive like an asshole, speeding tickets are just an inconvenient, Poisson-frequency toll. Yes, you can safely drive 80 mph in light or no traffic... and if you do so, you might get one ticket every ~3-5 years. You're not likely to accumulate points. Good-driver-got-unlucky tickets are rare and usually minor enough that it doesn't cost-justify the plate. Even if your insurance company is a dickhead, you can usually go to court and get the charge reduced to something without points... unless you habitually drive like an asshole (or speed in the wrong state; be cautious in Virginia.)
It's not surprising that this article would focus on Sand Hill Road, where the running ideology is that one should be able to buy one's way out of anything.
Go as fast as you want - but don't be the fastest car on the road.
That sounds like a pretty considerable constraint on going as fast as you want...IME there isn't always a person who wants to go a hair faster than you readily available (especially if you're at the top end of the spectrum in your muscle car - do you drive strictly in areas with lots of fast drivers?). I mean, I'm fully in support of the rule, I call that car the "rabbit," but if you're intentionally following someone you're not going as fast as you want, right?
Yep, I thought this was general knowledge. Here in the northeast we have "PBA Cards" which can be given out by police to friends/family/donators that you are supposed to hand the officer with your license if you're pulled over.
Although to be honest I've found that just being nice (& maybe driving a real clean volvo) has gotten me out of a speeding ticket every time I've been pulled over
Quebec used to have these stickers to place on your plate for registration (not anymore). And some police families were giving out plate stickers with VIP written on them, which as it was found out gave them leniency, as well as parking ticket immunity. Investigations happened, and as a result, no one has these anymore, at least as far as the general public know.
I can recall a marketing call where I was asked to donate to one association or another and told I'd get a window decal or something to that effect, and while it wouldn't give me a free pass, it would certainly show officers on the road I appreciate them. I've got the exact verbage wrong, but that was the sentiment (this was several years ago). It was quite a hard sell from the solicitor, and I didn't go for it. I was frankly a little disgusted by the call.
That said, I've been driving for 20 years, and pulled over one time. That one time, an out of state cop (in my home town) pulled me over because the license plate frame (from the dealership I bought the car at) partially obscured the state name and he couldn't tell what it was. I suppose it could have been another state that ended in -nois, like lilinois, iiiinois, or something else, but more than likely, it was 5AM in a small town in Maine and I was circling around one-way streets looking lost or suspicious (I hadn't been back there in many years). The cop gave me directions to the street my grandfather lived on, and told me to enjoy my trip.
The secret here is surprisingly simple, and applies to most everything else in life. Don't be a dick. Drive around the same speed as other cars, and if you're the only one on the road, don't do more than 5-6 mph over the limit on the highway. It won't cost you that much time, and if you're the only one on the road it's probably dark and/or rural anyway so you SHOULD be more cautious, and in the end, you win either way, at the great expense of.. a few minutes time.
Another tip I've learned, is do as others do - especially on highways. Think about it, when you're driving across country, how many other cars around you are undertaking that length of a trip? It's far more likely most of them live in the area, and know what's appropriate - both for safety, and for cop-avoidance.
You'll almost never get pulled over for doing exactly 11 over on any street with a speed limit of 50 or higher. Thanks to the law of cosines, a cop is likely to read you going 10 or less or less, and cops generally don't even bother with people doing 9 or less over, especially highway patrol.
I once read a book by a retired police officer about how to avoid tickets. (Protip: a new one comes out every few years)
His take was that organizations within the police department are just like fraternities on a college campus: You have people who are with them and people who vehemently dislike them. So you're taking a gamble. Still, it seems like it's worth it if you're a speeder.
Yup. One play might be to not display any affiliations or bumper stickers at all. If you have to advertise X, it seems like you're "trying too hard." Just as a non-cop, seeing NRA stickers is going to make me immediately assume irritable, gun-toting jerk.
I would be interested in theories as to how many additional accidents and deaths this leniency has caused. The thought of a police force increasing the death rate on their roads in order financially support their coworkers is depressing to say the least.
Speaking from experience the 11-99 is as much a badge of bullshit honor amongst "serious" car enthusiasts.
Like I not only have a Porsche I have $2500 and I am a serious racer.
If pricenomics had presented one piece of actual data vs conjecture this would be compelling but barring that this is just linkbait and probably good marketing for more stupid vanity license plates just like the la times article they reference
A police officer friend once told me, to put your hands out the window when you get pulled over, and leave them there, until the office tells you to stop. Then you casually say sorry and mention that an cop-friend told you to do it, to put their (the cops) minds at ease while they walk up. Anecdotal evidence on my end, suggests it works.
I have heard to just keep you hands on the top of the wheel, and when they ask for license and registration I say "Ok, my license is in my back pocket, and the registration is in the center console. I am getting the license out first." Then I move my hands off the steering wheel.
The trick with the other guy's thing is that he gets a reason to mention a cop friend. It's a conversation trick.
Situation 1: Cop walks up. You mention your cop friend. Trouble will ensue because you're obviously trying to say "I'm friends with policemen."
Situation 2: Cop walks up. Asks why you're doing obviously bizarre thing. Say it's because your cop friend asked you to so that police can know you're empty handed. You've now responded to a question and managed to mention that you're a friend with the police. He can't hold that against you because he's the one that asked.
The "bizarre" thing, he was referring to is holding your hands out the window. Not everyone does that typically; and one of the most important things you can do is to keep your hands where the officer can see them as they approach. It's like a "social cue" that tells them you are clued in. They might be a little more willing to let you go.
I watched a friend get out of a ticket in California not by having a special license plate, but by being dressed in a suit, and being friendly. He was blatantly going 90+, and the cop seemed annoyed when he first approached the car. Then, I think "this is a rich kid!" clicked in his brain, and they had a nice chat.
Can you copyright a license plate frame? I'd love to make a bunch of these things and go hand them out to low income minorities, those people deserve a break from the cops for once.
"Either be friends with a police officer or pay us $2k for a license plate frame and you can get out of tickets" both very much has something to do with wealth and is incredibly corrupt.
do you really have to be wealthy to have access to $2k? While you can argue this is a corrupt system, you dont have to drive a high end two door sports car to have access to it.
Seriously? This is a pretty worrisome disconnect. Having 2k to blow on something like this is almost the definition of wealth to me and is very certainly not fair or productive to society to have things like this.
In California VC Section 28150, a LIDAR jammer in of itself can result in a ticket. Best to coast and switch it off very quickly. In my experience only about 20% of patrol cars used LIDAR, the majority seem to be using K or Ka band RADAR. X band is so prone to false alarms and never had an actual alert on it that wasn't a speed sign so, disabling it is common.
Actually, more than a ticket. They can impound your car.
However, most systems have an "alert then disable after X seconds" system - giving you time to slow, then disable the jam, allowing the LEO to get a 'speed' eventually (and chalk it up to his crappy LIDAR gun)
Take a look at the grilles of some exotic / fast cars. If you see devices inset that look like IR blasters -- those are LIDAR jammers.
It's a charity organization. It's not about the economics making sense. It's intended to be a gift for donating money, not a +EV speeding ticket helper.
If you are rich enough to drive a 9-11 around you are probably less price sensitive than the people buying the counterfit ones. For these people, the points on their license and the hassle caused by the ticket would probably be the main concern. Under those assumptions, the risk of being caught using a counterfit one would be hard to justify.
This is about human lives. Once you eliminate birth-defects, car accidents are the leading cause of death for people under 35. Particularly for young kids, who obviously aren't driving.
Car accidents kill 34,000 Americans per-year. That's like if 9/11 happened once a month every year.
And speed matters. Stopping distance and kinetic energy go up with the square of velocity. A pedestrian hit by a car going 20 mph will almost certainly live. A person hit by a car going 40 mph will almost certainly die.