Driving Freedoms - National Motorists Association

DrivingFreedomsNMA FoundationVol. 22 • Issue 2Spring 2011The NMA Foundation isa non-profit organizationdedicated to findinginnovative ways to improveand protect the interests ofNorth American motorists.If your NMA membership expirationdate is on (or before) 4/1/11, this isyour last issue ofDriving FreedomsPlease renew nowto avoid any laPse!A PowerfulCase by LawEnforcementfor Safe andRealisticSpeed LimitsNMA Foundation402 W. 2nd St.Waunakee, WI 53597ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTEDNON-PROFITORGANIZATIONUS POSTAGE PAIDMADISON, WIPERMIT #2860

Spring 2011Driving FreedomsDrivingFreedomsTable Of ContentsVolume 22 • Issue 2Spending Your Money....................... 2The NMA’s Visionary Club................ 3NMA Washington Report................... 4Vehicle Accident Reconstruction....... 5A Powerful Case............................... 7News From Around The Country....... 9Two Cases, Two Strategies............. 10The Experts Corner..........................11SCCs & Activists List....................... 12Members Write................................ 13Copyright © 2011 by NMA Foundation.All rights reserved.Driving Freedoms (permit # 0716556-KWP) is theofficial publication of the NMA Foundation, Inc. DrivingFreedoms is published quarterly by the NMA Foundation,Inc., 402 W. 2nd St., Waunakee, WI 53597. (608/849-6000)Email: nma@motorists.org Web site: www.motorists.org.Nonprofit bulk permit paid Madison, WI. Annual membership inthe National Motorists Association includes a subscription toDriving Freedoms.Editorial StaffManaging Editor............................Gary BillerStaff Writer............................. James J. BaxterStaff Writer................................. Aaron QuinnStaff Writer.................................Robert TalleyGuest Writer...................Jerry F. Cuderman IIGuest Writer..................................Sasha LanzEditor-at-Large.............................. Bill JordanCover“A Powerful Case by Law Enforcementfor Safe and Realistic Speed Limits”Spending Your Moneyby James J. Baxter, President, NMAYep, we’re spending yourmoney every single day. Mondaythrough Friday we’re sendingout legislative alerts – todayMissouri and Florida are hot spots– responding to media inquiries,reviewing legal arguments and, ofcourse, helping folks with trafficticket problems.In March, we did somethinga little out of the ordinary. Wesubmitted an amicus curiae briefto the Massachusetts SupremeJudicial Court.In 2009, the MassachusettsState Legislature passed andthe Governor signed a bill thatrequires traffic ticket defendantsto pay a fee to defend themselvesin court. The law requires a fee of$25 just to get a hearing before anadministrative clerk.The police officer whoissued the citation doesn’t evenhave to attend this hearing. Thecost to get a hearing in a realcourt with a real judge, with thepolice officer present, is another$50. Just to heap absurdity uponinjustice, these mandatory feesare not refundable, even when thecharges against the defendant aredismissed.We have railed against thispractice, which we believe to beunconstitutional, ever since thelaw was passed in Massachusetts.We were fully prepared to challengethis law in court if we couldfind a suitable defendant to pressthe issue in an appellate court.We lucked out. Quiteindependent of our efforts, anattorney by the name of RalphSullivan challenged a trafficticket he had received, lost atthe hearing process, and won onappeal to a regular court. Ralphmade a motion to have his $75in fees returned, which the courtdenied. Ralph appealed thatdenial.Meanwhile, in another cornerof the Massachusetts justicesystem, another motorist lost hischallenge of a parking ticket,this time in an administrativehearing run by the same agencythat issued the parking ticket.(The State seems oblivious tothe obvious conflict of interestin this system.) Unhappy withthe outcome, the parking ticketrecipient appealed the hearingverdict. This is where hediscovered that it would cost anonrefundable $275 to appealhis $15 parking ticket. With thehelp of the ACLU, this issuealso entered the appellate courtsystem.In a rare and unusual act,the Massachusetts SupremeJudicial Court requested that theSullivan and parking ticket casesbe transferred to its jurisdictionand consolidated for review.This proved to be an excellentopportunity to weigh in on thisissue on behalf of our membersand motorists in general.After reviewing the argumentssubmitted by all parties,(Continued on Page 4)

Driving FreedomsSpring 2011The NMA’s Visionary ClubThe NMA recently announcedthe formation of the Visionary Clubto properly recognize significantcontributors to the organization overthe years. The philanthropy of suchdonors has been critical to the successof the NMA and NMA Foundation.No other North American motorists’rights organization has had anywherenear the 30-year longevity of theNMA.If a person’s or organization’scumulative gifts to the NMA havetotaled $2500 or more, they qualifyas members of the Visionary Club.The donations may have been directlythrough the annual Legislative andFoundation fundraising campaigns,through planned estate gifts, or bycombination of the two.There are five different membershiplevels within the Visionary Club.They are based on specific givinglevels and are shown in the adjacentbox.Every August, the NMA willupdate donor levels to identify newVisonary Club members and thosewho have climbed to a higher levelwithin the Club. Each new member,and member with updated status, willreceive a Certificate of Membership(similar to that shown on this page) tomemorialize their contributions towardimproving and protecting motorists’rights through our advocacy programs.Through late 2010, there were 46Visionary Club members. We knowVisionary Club MembershipCumulative Giving LevelBenefactor $2,500 to $9,999Benefactor Cum Laude $10,000 to $24,999Benefactor Magna Cum Laude $25,000 to $49,999Benefactor Summa Cum Laude $50,000 to $99,999James J. Baxter Founders Circle$100,000 and greaterthat number has already increased withsome recent gifts. A list of memberswill be published each year in the Fallissue of Driving Freedoms.Visionary Club members also have theoption of remaining anonymous if theywish.Planned giving includes gifts madeas part of an overall financial/estateplan. For more information about howyou can become an instant VisionaryClub member by including the NMA asa beneficiary of your will, living trust,retirement account, or life insurancepolicy, please contact Gary Biller at theNMA National Office in Waunakee,Wisconsin via email (nma@motorists.org) or by phone (608-849-6000).Gifts of appreciable property −cash, stocks, bonds, and collectibles −are also applied toward Visionary Clubmembership. •Winners of 2010 NMA Foundation Sweepstakes AnnouncedCongratulations to the following NMA members, whose names were drawn at random as Sweepstakes prize winners:Gurdon Hornorof Cumming, GAWinner of the Escort RedlineRadar DetectorMarilyn Kellyof Stormville, NYWinner of the Valentine OneRadar LocatorRichard Morseof University Park, FLWinner of the Garmin Nuvi3790T GPS Navigation System

Spring 2011Driving FreedomsNMA Washington Reportby Robert Talley, NMA LobbyistFunding for our roads remainsa focus of federal legislatorsbecause since 2009, Congress hasfailed to provide a long term highwayprogram. On March 3rd, justtwo days before the current programwas set to expire, Congressapproved an extension of currenttransportation funding throughthe end of the fiscalyear. The bill, whichwill fund state transportationdepartmentsthrough September30th, passed the Houseeasily with a 421-4vote.The existing surfacetransportation billexpired in September2009 and has beenkept alive with a series of stopgapfunding extensions ever since. Thetemporary extension comes as theHouse Transportation and InfrastructureCommittee and the SenateEnvironment and Public WorksCommittee are working on a multiyearreauthorization of the surfacetransportation program that isexpected to come up for debate inthe spring. Leaders in both chamberssay they want to get the billto President Obama’s desk no laterthan August.Transportation Secretary RayLaHood has been on the Hill on acongressional tour to discuss the administration’ssix-year $556 billionsurface transportation plan outlinedin the White House fiscal 2012 budgetrequest. The White House planfor a surface transportation reauthorizationwould give greater weightto public transit and rail projects,putting them in the renamed TransportationTrust Fund alongsidehighway projects. The proposal alsocreates a National InfrastructureBank and sets aside $4.1 billion forlivability projects. The $556 billionprice tag represents a 66 percentincrease in transportation funding,committing roughly $270 billionmore over six years.Most significant, the newbudget increases come without anyplan to pay for the new programs.This is a critical shortcoming as thecurrent highway funding stream,the national gasoline tax, fails toadequately meet transportationneeds. As legislators grapple withfinancial choices over the course ofthe summer, difficult decisions willbe made over funding some highprofile programs like drunk drivingeducation and sobrietycheckpoints.Meanwhile, ideas tostop drinking and drivingcontinue to proliferate.Sen. Tom Udall(D-NM) has proposedthat the Department ofTransportation annuallystudy and report waysto limit drunk driving inthe US.Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) wouldlike to go further. He proposes towithhold increasing portions offederal funding for highways fromstates that refuse to implement programsthat require breathalyzers tobe installed in vehicles of individualsconvicted of drunk driving.Undoubtedly, as the year progressesand Congress begins to seriouslytackle our infrastructure, wewill see increasingly inane proposalsthat will require intervention bymotivated NMA members. •Spending Your Money(Continued from Page 2)including the state, it was clear thatthe issues concerning us the mostwere not being addressed; namely,how this law violated the dueprocess rights guaranteed by boththe United States and MassachusettsState Constitutions.Consequently, we began thedrafting of an amicus curiae brieffor the Massachusetts SupremeJudicial Court. The final brief wassubmitted on March 8th. The oralhearing was held March 10th. Atthe time of this printing a decisionhas not been rendered.To view the NMA amicus brief,please go to the following URL,or you can contact our office for aprinted copy:www.motorists.org/due-process-brief/•

Driving FreedomsSpring 2011Vehicle Accident Reconstruction − An Overview, Part 2by Jerry F. Cuderman II, Ph.D., P.E.Part 1 of Dr. Cuderman’s articleappeared in the Winter 2011 issue ofDriving Freedoms.If an accident reconstructionistis hired soon enough after the actualevent, much of the physical evidenceleft by the collision may still beat the site. However, even if thephysical evidence is largely gone,there are techniquesto reacquire the dataif police investigatorsor others take sufficientphotographsshortly after theaccident.Proper photographictechniquesare time-consumingand involve usingspecial camerasand/or computersoftware, but areessential in reconstructingthe collisionin the absense of keyphysical evidence.There are a number of factorsthat are often analyzed in accidentreconstruction (AR): nighttimevisibility, visual conspicuity, lampfilament analysis (to determine ifvehicle headlights were on at thetime of collision), traffic light timingand sequence, roadway frictionissues, hydroplaning, mechanicalfailure, signage, braking performance,and yaw mark (sideslip)analysis, just to name a few. Everycollision presents a different set ofanalysis requirements for AR.A more recent class of physicalevidence involves event datarecorders (EDR), often referred toas black boxes. Although the latterterm is a bit of a misnomer, more andmore vehicles are equipped with ameans of recording crash informationthat is useful in determining whathappened. At the very least, typicalrecording equipment will registerinformation regarding the crashpulse, which is the change in speedof the vehicle during the collision.Some EDRs will provide up toseveral minutes of data prior to thecollision, including vehicle speed,brake light and anti-lock brakestatus, transmission gear selectorposition, throttle position, steeringwheel angle, vehicle rotation rates,seatbelt usage, and more.It is critically important to knowhow to interpret the EDR data. Oneof the biggest effects that suchdata have had is keeping everyone“honest,” since the collected informationoften provides a solid foundationthat cannot be ignored. Hence,the “black box” does not replace ARbut can actually enhance it.On a side note, whether the lawsays the owner of the vehicle “owns”the data appears to be largely irrelevant– I have never been involvedin a case in the past 15 years whereaccess to the data was not ultimatelyagreed to by the owner or ordered bythe court.AR can ordinarily determinewhat occurred in an incident withoutthe availability of EDR data.Analysis of the physical evidencevaries from collision to collision. Itis almost always necessary to studythe physical evidence to determinehow vehicles movedprior to, during,and after impact.Estimating vehiclespeed is also importantand typicallyrequires application ofthe physics of conservationof momentumand conservation ofenergy.Sometimes datafrom the vehicle arenearly self-explanatoryrelative to speedand not much elseneeds to be analyzed.There are also occasions where it isnecessary to accurately measure howmuch a vehicle was crushed duringan accident.That information can then beused in conjunction with governmentor other crash test data to calculatethe energy of the collision itself.Through this process, a completepicture of the vehicle speeds beforeand after the collision can bedeveloped.In addition, it is often necessaryto perform a time and motionanalysis to determine, (1) the relativepositions of the vehicles through thecourse of the accident, (2) what each(Continued top of next page)

Spring 2011Driving Freedomsdriver was able to see, and (3) howmuch time they had to perceive andreact to the situation.Once all the evidence has beengathered and interpreted, it is timeto formulate opinions as to whathappened in the collision. Driverperception-reaction should beaccounted for, and what each persondid or failed to do requires analysisto reach conclusions on the ultimatecause of the collision.Once the accident reconstructionisthas formed opinions, it istypically necessary to prepare areport containing conclusions. Manytimes the AR report is used by otherexperts − such as the biomechanicsspecialist who needs to know thespeeds and acceleration rates ina collision to determine cause ofinjury.Finally, AR specialists are oftenasked to provide expert testimonyregarding the details of theirreconstruction. This is usually doneby deposition, or if the case goesto trial, courtroom testimony. In adeposition or trial, the AR expert istypically asked how the analysis wasconducted and what foundation existsfor the opinions rendered.Twenty years ago, most civilcases probably proceeded until allAR depositions were taken. Then, 95percent of the time, cases would besettled before trial. Today, more andmore cases are settled even beforereports are written or depositionstaken. One way or another, mostcases involving accident reconstructionsettle prior to trial. •Editor’s Note: Subsequent to Dr.Cuderman’s submittal of this articlefor Driving Freedoms, theNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA) renewed itsefforts to mandate the inclusion ofEDR in all North American manufacturedvehicles within the next twomodel years. NHTSA is leveragingthe controversy surrounding thealleged acceleration problems ofcertain Toyota models to gain furtherpolitical traction on the issue.The NMA remains adamantlyopposed to the release of EDR data byanyone other than the actual ownerof those data, the registered owneror lessee of the vehicle. As we havenoted in previous issues of DrivingFreedoms, current federal andstate laws are woefully inadequate inspelling out a vehicle owner’s rightswith regard to EDR data.Are You Really theOwner of Your EDRand Its Data?Five years ago, NHTSApredicted that by 2010 nearly85 percent of the vehicles onNorth American roads wouldbe equipped with event datarecorders. While it is difficult toverify whether that prognosticationcame true, it is clear thata large percentage of vehiclesnow available for sale do havethe capability of recording andstoring a range of operatingparameters.Currently, several makes ofcars and trucks store data thatinclude a wealth of information.This information is held for(Continued top of next column)several seconds − sometimesminutes − and is saved in theevent of a collision. Such datacan include vehicle speed,engine speed, throttle position,accelerator position, transmissionselector gear, steering wheelangle, cruise control status, brakeswitch state, anti-lock brakeactivity, longitudinal and lateralacceleration, and roll rate.NHTSA’s 2006 ruling,49 CFR Part 563, providedguidelines for the standardizationof data to be collected by EDRs.The basic categories noted inthe ruling included pre-crashvehicle dynamics and systemstatus, driver inputs, vehicle crashsignature, restraint usage/deploymentstatus, and post-crashinformation.Originally, NHTSA noted acompliance date of September 1,2010 for 49 CFR Part 563. Whenit became clear that many automanufacturers were not going tomeet that requirement, NHTSAextended the compliance date toSeptember 1, 2012. As notedin the adjacent Editor’s Note,NHTSA is now pushing formandatory compliance to 49 CFRPart 563 by all North Americancar and truck manufacturers.Most car and truck owners donot know if their vehicles haveEDRs, how to extract the datafrom the recorder, or what theirownership rights are regarding thecollected data. With only twelvestates (Arkansas, California,Colorado, Connecticut, Maine,New Hampshire, New York,Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon,Texas, and Virginia) having lawson their books to define ownershipissues surrounding EDRs, motoristswill need to be become betterinformed about their rights. •

Driving FreedomsSpring 2011The Michigan State Police get it.Not only do they get it, the MSP areinstrumental in advocating for it withtheir state legislators.“It” is the setting of speed limitsbased on the 85th percentile principle,something long supported by the NMAand a wide range of traffic engineers.Studies have established that thesafest limits are those based on the speedat or below that which 85 percent ofunencumbered traffic is traveling. The85th percentile speed results statisticallyin the lowest speed variance amongvehicles, helping to alleviate congestionand minimizing the number of collisions.Typically statutory speed limits,many of which have been unchangedfor several decades, are set in the 30 to40 percentile range. This means that byjust traveling at the speed of prevailingtraffic in those areas, 60 to 70 percent ofthe drivers will be violating the postedspeed limit.Lt. Gary Megge is a formidablespokesperson for the MSP. He recentlyJolly Road at West DrivewayP o sted 55 m p hSpeed number of Vehicles additional3 5 I3 63 7 I3 8 II3 9 IIIII4 0 IIIIIIIII4 1 IIIIII4 2 IIIIIIIIIIII4 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 6 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 7 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 8 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 9 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 2 IIIIIIIII 8 5 % P a tro l C a r5 3 IIIIIIIIII5 4 IIIIII5 5 IIIIIIII S p e e d L im it5 6 IIII5 7 IIIII5 85 96 06 1 I264 vehicles8 5 % S p e ed = 52 m p hL o w S p e ed = 3 5 m p hH igh S p e e d = 6 1 m phP a tro l C a r S p e ed = 52 m p hC o m p lian ce R ate = 95%A Powerful Case by Law Enforcement forSafe and Realistic Speed Limitsappeared before the TransportationCommittees of the Michigan Senate andHouse of Representatives, driving homethe importance of setting realistic speedlimits, i.e., those set by following thesesteps:1.2.3.4.Im p ro p e r C h a n g e5.Conduct a traffic study to determinethe 85th percentile speed;Analyze crash data (accident rateand type of accidents);Assess the roadside environment;Consider the roadway configuration,e.g., number of lanes, length of road;Factor in other traffic and pedestrianmovement influencesLt. Megge emphasized the need toconduct the traffic studies during idealdriving conditions while eliminating anyexternal factors that would prevent thefree flow of traffic.He also noted that the measurementof vehicle speed during the traffic studyshould be done unobtrusively so thatdrivers don’t necessarily realize that theirFigure 1Jolly Road at West DrivewayP o sted 4 5 m p hSpeed number of Vehicles additional3 53 6 II3 7 II3 8 III3 9 I4 0 IIIIIIII4 1 IIIIIII4 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S p e e d L im it4 6 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 7 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 8 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 9 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 8 5 % P a tro l C a r5 2 IIIIIIIIIII5 3 IIIIIII5 4 IIIIIIIIII5 5 IIIIII5 6 II5 7 II5 8 I5 96 0 I6 1330 vehicles8 5 % S p e ed = 51 m p hL o w S p e ed = 3 6 m p hH igh S p e e d = 6 0 m phP a tro l C a r S p e ed = 51 m p hC o m p lian ce R ate = 37%driving habits are being surveyed.That last point is an interesting onebecause the premise behind the 85thpercentile speed is that regardless ofwhat the posted speed is (or isn’t), thebenchmark speed of the prevailing trafficwill be the same for a given stretch ofroad. In other words, the majority ofdrivers will travel at a rate they feel safeand comfortable.Megge demonstrated this to theMichigan legislators through the use ofseveral PowerPoint slides, some thatwe have reproduced for this article.In Figure 1, Improper Change, datafrom two different traffic surveys atthe same location (Jolly Road at WestDriveway) are presented. One surveywas conducted with a posted speed limitof 55 mph, the other after the limit wasreduced to 45 mph. Note that the 85thpercentile speed varied only from 52mph to 51 mph between the two tests.Despite claims to the contrary from“speed kills” advocates, drivers don’tautomatically speed up when postedlimits are increased.Even more dramatically, the MSPran traffic surveys at a similar locationwith a wider spread between postedspeed limits, from 55 mph to 70 mph.The results? As shown in Figure 2,Speed Studies, the 85th percentile speedactually decreased from 73 mph to 72mph when the posted limit was 15 mphhigher.Megge and the MSP acted asmythbusters in another regard. Toomany people believe the old saw thatslower traffic flow results in saferroadways. That folly is disproven by thefacts, as illustrated in Figure 3, CrashInvolvement vs. Speed.First, notice that the crashinvolvement curves − one each for night-(Continued top of next page)

Spring 2011Driving FreedomsSpeed Studies of Same Road with 55mph Speed limit and 70mph Speed limitaverage = 66.4mph Variance = 36.1 average = 67.7mph Variance = 27.8 (-33%)SPEED STUDY, fREEWaYSpeed number of Vehicles additional5 5 < llllllllllllllll S p e e d L im it (2 .4 % )5 6 lllllll5 7 llllllll5 8 lllllllllllllllllll5 9 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 0 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 1 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 2 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 3 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 4 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 5 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 6 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 5 0 th P e rcentile6 7 llllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 8 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 9 lllllllllllllllllllllll7 0 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 1 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 2 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 3 lllllllllllllllllllll 8 5 th P e rcentile7 4 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 5 llllllllllllllll7 6 llllllllllll7 7 llllllll7 8 lllllll7 9 llllll8 0 lllllllll 2 .1 % @ 8 0 + m p h8 1 ll8 28 3 l8 4 + ll658 Vehicles, 17 minute studytime (rural), daytime (rural), and freewaydriving − bottom out close to zero deviationfrom average speed, or slightly tothe plus deviation side. This implies thatthe safest traffic flow occurs when speedvariance among vehicles is near zero.Second, note how steep the crashinvolvement curves become when thedeviation from average speed becomesmore and more negative. Slower driverscreate a much higher risk of collisionthan drivers who are at or above theaverage traffic speed.The MSP have an enlightenedculture, one that values traffic safety overcollecting revenue through commandand control tactics such as speed traps.The MSP were instrumental in draftingMichigan’s Public Act 85, a law thatrequires localities to base speed limits onproven, scientific methods, like that ofthe 85th percentile.When several communities were stillusing antiquated speed limits and wereissuing speeding tickets accordingly,Megge and the MSP spoke out loudlyto the media about the disregard for thelawful requirements of PA 85.It is also noteworthy that the MSPSPEED STUDY, fREEWaYSpeed number of Vehicles additional5 5 < lll5 6 ll5 7 llllllll5 8 lllllllllllllll5 9 lllllllll6 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 1 llllllllllllllllllllll6 2 llllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 3 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 4 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 5 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 6 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 7 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll6 8 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 5 0 th P e rc e n tile6 9 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 0 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll S p e e d L im it7 1 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 2 llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 8 5 th P e rc e n tile7 3 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll7 4 llllllllllllllllllll7 5 llllllll7 6 llllllllllll7 7 llllllllllllll7 8 llllll7 9 llllllll8 0 ll 1 .1 % @ 8 0 + m p h8 1 l8 28 3 l8 4 + llll721 Vehicles, 18 minute studyFigure 2were instrumental in encouraging achange to Michigan’s standard workzone speed limits. The current “45Where Workers Present,” as opposedto a blanket lower limit with or withoutworkers present, might not have beenenacted without the help of the MSP.Not all is peachy keen for drivers inMichigan, however. The state’s DriverResponsibility Act (DRA) penalizesdrivers over and above usual traffic fines,particularly those with specific priortraffic violations, or who have accumulatedseven or more points on theirdriving records. $800 million in revenuewas collected under the DRA between2004 and 2009, with most of that moneybeing deposited in the state’s GeneralFund. Our members in Michigan havebeen very active in working for therepeal of the DRA. Last September,the State House of Representativesvoted unanimously for that repeal.Unfortunately, the State Senate did notpick up the issue before the legislativesession ended, effectively killing theinitiative for that year.The DRA activity is not a reflectionon the enforcement responsibilities of theMSP or the active work they are doing toadvocate safer and more realistic speedlimits throughout the state.The NMA is pleased to endorsethe efforts of law enforcement agencieslike the Michigan State Police, who aretruly helping motorists by educatingboth legislators and the electorate on thevirtues of rational traffic regulations andproven engineering methods. •Crash Involvement vs. SpeedFigure 3

Driving FreedomsSpring 2011News FromAround The CountryNow featured, with daily updates,as “NMA Driving News” at www.motorists.orgUnited StatesThe U.S. Department of Transportationhas released data revealing thatAmerican drivers traveled over 2.9trillion miles in 2010. According toDOT, that’s a 0.7 percent, or 20.5 billion-mile)increase over 2009, and thehighest rate since 2007.CaliforniaThe city council in San Bernardinovoted 5 to 0 in early March to pullthe plug on its red-light cameraprogram. The action follows the leadof a growing number of jurisdictionsin the Golden State that have beendisillusioned with automated ticketingmachines.The Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority willconvert sections of Interstate 10 andInterstate 110 from high-occupancyvehicle (HOV) lanes to what it calls“Express Lanes,” which will allowdrivers to zip along solo if they’rewilling to pay a toll.ColoradoOne class of Colorado license platesare virtually invisible to photo enforcementsystems: those on the vehiclesof Colorado’s own lawmakers. Thelegislative license plates are not tied to acar’s vehicle registration information, sophoto tickets aren’t issued.IllinoisAlderman Ray Suarez (31st) wantsto mandate countdown signals at allChicago intersections with red-lightcameras. Countdown signals are normallyinstalled to protect pedestrians,but may also be useful for drivers tohelp anticipate signal change.MarylandBaltimore police and transportationofficials are trying to correct a problemwith about 2,000 red-light camera citationsbearing the signature of a long-deceasedpolice officer.MassachusettsThe Massachusetts Supreme JudicialCourt is reviewing the appeal of Belmontattorney Ralph Sullivan, who saysthe $75 it cost him to challenge a trafficticket is just plain unfair — and violateshis right and the rights of thousandsof others to equal protection and dueprocess under the law. (See “SpendingYour Money” on page 2 for more informationabout this news item.)MissouriOn January 12th, the MissouriHighways and Transportation Commissionadopted a new policy that willregulate red-light and speed camerason roads and highways that are understate control. New cameras will haveto be preceded by studies and a 30-daypublic awareness campaign; signs willhave to be posted in advance of camera-enforcedintersections; local agenciesusing the cameras must provideongoing safety and citation data; andcertified law enforcement officers willhave to determine violations.New JerseyGlassboro, the first southern NewJersey municipality to issue a red-lightcamera ticket, has admitted that it issued12,000 tickets worth $1 million atan intersection where the yellow-lighttime was illegally short.North CarolinaState Senator Don East introducedlegislation in early March that wouldmake it a crime to operate a red-lightcamera or speed camera. On the otherend of the spectrum, a dozen Democratsin the state House joined twoRepublicans in introducing competinglegislation that would authorize the useof speed cameras to generate revenueto pay a court judgment entered againstthe state.OregonThe days of having your speedingticket reduced because of a good drivingrecord would be over if OregonHouse Bill 2712, overhauling courtfines, passes the Legislature this year.The law would remove judges’ discretionto order those reductions.South CarolinaSouth Carolina is considering a billthat would allow police to slap $150tickets on motorists caught driving lessthan 10 mph over the limit, but let themskip reporting the tickets to shield lowspeedoffenders from higher insurancepremiums, and likely to minimize theresistance of would-be ticket fighters.A new South Carolina program ismaking sure the state gets the moneyfrom those who haven’t paid theirtraffic tickets — by taking it from theirincome tax returns. The program willtake your money if there’s an outstandingcontempt warrant out for you,which means if you failed to show upfor your court date or failed to payunder a payment plan. •This information is current at timeof printing. For more informationon this and other motorist news, visitwww.motorists.org

Spring 2011Driving Freedoms10Two Cases, Two Strategies, Two Victories in Traffic CourtSigns of aCommon-Sense Defenseby Rod, NMA Arizona MemberA friend and I decided on a latenightsupper out. We arrived to findthe restaurant had just closed. Closeby was a fast-food place across a bigboulevard. I headed east after crossingfour lanes to get to the fifth − a leftturn-onlylane. When the left turnarrow switched to green, I pulled a U-turn, and then a right into the fast-foodjoint.Moments later, I was stopped andticketed for the U-turn. I told the cop Ithought U-turns were legal in Arizonaunless posted. He said I was correct,but that the intersection was marked. Iasked him to show me. We walked ½block, and yep, on a horizontal bar overa go-straight lane was an unlit “no-Uturn”sign between two bright trafficsignals.I measured and took pictures thenext day and night. The unlit sign wasseventeen feet off of the ground, thirtyfivefeet to my right. When I made theU-turn, I had concentrated on the trafficsignal on the opposite corner, to myleft. I made an enlarged night photofrom what had been my viewpoint. Youcould barely make out the sign. I wentto court. My friend testified that fromthe passenger seat, he too had no ideathe sign was there.I cited the five fundamental criteriafor regulatory signs in the Manualon Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD): 1) Fulfill a need, 2)Command attention, 3) Convey a clear,simple meaning, 4) Command respectfrom travelers, and 5) Give adequatetime for proper response.I noted to the court that the signin question failed to meet three of thefive requirements! I introduced mynight photo plus another of an identicalintersection only a couple of miles fromwhere I was cited. That intersectionhad a second “No-U-Turn” sign on theopposite signal post. I stated that if theCity deemed a second sign was neededat that intersection, one should havebeen present at “my” intersection. Ialso noted that if a second signal post isneeded, a second sign should be also.After being found “not responsible”(the judge complimented me),the cop came up and said that after myperformance, he was glad my case wasnot a lawsuit against the city for a crashcaused by a poorly marked intersection!Soon a second “No-U-Turn” sign wasinstalled on the opposite signal post– BUT – only eastbound. The samesituation still exists going west…Exercising My Rightsby Sasha Lanz, NMA Texas MemberAfter checking with the NMAto make sure I was covered by theirTraffic Justice Program if I lost mybattle, I went to my traffic courthearing to fight a ticket for doing 61mph in a 40 mph zone.I thought I was pretty safe, sincethe speed limit posted where I got theticket was 45 mph. If the officer can’teven get the posted speed limit correct,how can we trust him to do the rest ofhis job properly?Besides, I was cited for speedingon a freeway exit ramp, with the 45mph sign within sight of the officer’shiding place. He clocked me in thevicinity of the sign, and if he pushedthe button on the radar gun just beforeI reached his position, 60 mph wouldhave been a legal speed. Surely theywouldn’t convict me for 1 mph over.I was in traffic court before 1:30p.m. along with about 50 other misdemeanormiscreants. The first thing thathappened was dismissal of the chargesagainst everyone in the room who wasrepresented by a lawyer. I didn’t pay tobe represented, knowing that the NMAhad my back if I lost.Several people agreed to deferredadjudication ($150 fee) or probation($180 fee). Four of us were left to goto trial, and it was 4:30pm. The officerwas available, but they still had toimpanel a jury. So they began the hardsell to be tried by the judge, insteadof a jury. That was my preferenceanyway, and the others finally gavein. The judge told the prosecutors toprepare the paperwork, and then sentfor the officer.“Mr. Lanz, please see the bailiff.”So I walked up to the front, where Iwas told that my case was dismissed.Nearly 5:00 p.m. and I had out-waitedthem. I suppose they all wanted to gohome, and looked for the most likelycase to get rid of, or maybe the 40 vs.45 vs. 60 posted speed limit questionwas the key.Perhaps it was that I was the onlydefendant in a suit and tie, carrying abriefcase. I will never know. I didn’tstick around to see how those threeother quickie trials were resolved. •

13 Driving FreedomsSpring 2011In response to your recent articleon driver licenses (the Nov/Dec2010 issue cover story), I have somecomments.A couple of weeks ago at a roadblockcheckpoint, I got a ticket forbeing an “unlicensed driver.” That’swhat you get in New Jersey evenif your license is simply expired− not suspended, not revoked, justexpired.Why should a driver licenseever expire? I suggest the primaryreason is all about control. Thegovernment wants to keep trackof their “subjects” by having anupdated picture and other personalinformation for their files. And, ofcourse, they want the money in theform of the license renewal fee.In effect, the system says that ifyour driver license is expired, youare expired. It becomes a hassle toopen a bank account, or even obtaina library card. They might as wellstamp “expired” on your forehead.In a 2009 study called Freedomin the 50 States, each state wasranked by a number of differentfactors. New Hampshire was first,meaning the most free from inanegovernmental dictates. New Yorkwas dead last, barely edging outNew Jersey which was in the 49thslot. The “Garden State” motto onNJ license plates certainly doesn’treflect that.With any luck, the currentbudgetary crisis will result in fewerMembers Writepolice to issue tickets. I, for one,will not miss them.J. MackenzieMarlton, NJYour letters are welcomed and should not exceed 300 words. They may beedited for length or clarity. Full-length articles will also be considered forpublication and should not exceed 600 words. Submissions may be emailedto nma@motorists.org or mailed to 402 W 2nd St., Waunakee, WI 53597I note recent news articlesabout red-light cameras (RLCs) inthe state of Illinois, and in the cityof Chicago in particular. The storiesnote how ticket revenue is down dueto motorists going out of their wayto avoid intersections with RLCs.There is an overlooked, and Ithink important, point to be made inthe fight against photo enforcement.I’ll use a comparison of Illinois citiessouth of Chicago − Homewood,Lansing, Calumet City and Dolton− to those just across the state linein northwest Indiana (Hammond,Munster, Highland, and Merrillville,to name a few).The Indiana towns don’t haveRLCs. Illinois residents in theaforementioned communities shoulddo all of their shopping in northwestIndiana. In addition to avoiding therisk of being flashed by a camera,motorists will find that the sales andgasoline taxes are lower in Indiana.In other words, boycott localbusinesses where RLCs exist. Emphasizethat point with the media sothat local merchants in RLC-infestedcommunities recognize that themonetary pressure they are feeling isdue to the presence of the cameras.I’m sure the Chicago/northwestIndiana situation is not uniquearound the country. There are boundto be other areas where motoristsand shoppers can show their displeasurewith photo enforcementby taking their business to nearbycities, towns and villages that don’tuse RLCs to inflate their coffers.Media stories about the migrationof retail customers because ofRLCs can bring additional pressureto bear on local merchants. Smallbusinesses are the economic enginefor many locales. If we can grab theattention of business owners throughtheir pocketbooks, just as RLCshave grabbed our attention throughour wallets, the fight against redlightcameras will have gained apowerful set of allies.PaulCrete, IL•AVOID TRAFFIC TICKETS!USE YOUR GPS OR CELL PHONEALERT!Speed Trap Ahead!Slow Down!Hate traffic tickets? Then download 400,000+enforcement locations(POI) & receive timely andaccurate alerts while you drive. Speed traps, redlight cameras, speed cameras and school zones.You will see them before they see you. CoversUS/Canada. Works with Garmin,TomTom, Magellan GPS, GoogleAndroid, iPhone & BlackBerrySmartPhones. 100% LEGAL!AS SEEN ONTVSUBSCRIBE NOW! Starts at $9. 99 /monthSee how it works at ...PhantomALERT.com or call 1.800.520.4981

Great Deals At The NMA Store!Shop Online - http://store.motorists.org/Beat YourTicketState and local governments are increasinglyrelying on traffic ticket revenue fordaily operations. This book gives responsiblemotorists the means to protect theirrights by addressing many types of tickets:speeding, reckless driving, defectiveequipment, and more.Non-Member Price:$19.95Member Price:$11.95NMA Foundation Legal Defense KitRepresent yourself in traffic court and win! In addition to coveringcourt procedures and strategy, this ten-pound kit includes technicalinformation on speed enforcement devices, and state-specificinformation on Discovery and Public Records Laws (this is howyou get information from the police on your case!). Remember, thisresource is being constantly updated and improved.Call 800-882-2785 to order the Kit and tailor it specifically to your ticket!Rental Fee$155 Refundable Security DepositMembers: $30/month$10 S&HNon-Members: $50/monthDriver’s GuideTo Police RadarEver wondered just how close that policeofficer has to be to get you on his radar?Have you heard that lasers can’t be aimedthrough car glass? Are you getting yourmoney’s worth from your detector? Theseare just some of the questions answered inDriver’s Guide To Police Radar.Non-Member Price:$19.95Member Price:$14.95Order Toll-Free: 1-800-882-2785Fax Your Order: 1-608-849-8697Order Online: http://store.motorists.orgMail To: NMA Foundation, 402 W 2nd St, Waunakee, WI 53597NMA Member? Yes No VisaMember #MastercardCredit Card #Represent Yourself In Court is written forthe non-lawyer. This book offers a stepby-stepguide to representing yourself ina civil trial, from start to finish. It doesdouble duty in that you can use this informationfor any civil matter, not just traffictickets.Exp. DateSignatureNameAddressCity3-Digit Security CodeRepresent YourselfIn CourtLegalResearchWinning InTraffic CourtNon-Member Price:$29.95Many laws and statutes that you needto prepare your case are state specific,which means that you will have to do theresearch. This book gives you the basicunderstanding of how to conduct legalresearch. The book explains everything ineasy-to-understand terms.Non-Member Price:$29.95Member Price:$22.95This book is a helpful, enjoyable read onhow to fight a traffic ticket. The author notonly explains how to fight a traffic ticket,but also offers amusing anecdotes alongwith his justification for fighting everyticket you receive.Non-Member Price:$19.95Member Price:$21.95Member Price:$9.95StatePhoneEmail( )ZipUS Shipping & Handling Charges by Order SizeOrder$0 -$5$5 -$15$15 -$25$25 -$35$35 -$50$50 -$75$75 -$100$100+S & H Free $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10Product Qty PriceBeat Your TicketDriver’s Guide To Police RadarRepresent Yourself In CourtLegal ResearchWinning In Traffic CourtSubtotalS&HTotal-