I don't know how anyone could drive much over 30 MPH on Wise Avenue. The bumpy road would send you airborn. Having driven the entire stretch from Dundalk Ave to North Point Rd., fifty is just plain impossible. Maybe it looks like fifty to the untrained eye.

Sorry, I forgot speed cameras give tickets to people who adhere to the speed limit +12mph or less.

You're only 'a criminal' if you commit a crime. No amount of cameras changes this indisputable fact.

With all of those Chickens and Bulls on the road the Speed Limit should be lowered !(LOL)

The argument was raised a few years ago that 55 was too slow on the highways, and that is why people exceed the limit. Well, they raised the speed limit to 65 on some roads in Maryland. I just traveled I-70 and I-68 to and from Western Maryland. I spent most of the drive at 70mph, and was passed by most cars. People just don't seem to believe they need to obey the law. No matter what the limit, some will go over it. To argue that a $40 fine for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone (limit probably 25) by 48% is ridiculous! I think the fine should be higher and come with points. Slow down, fools.

I thought the 55 MPH speed limit was to save gas.

Geoffrey: I'm pretty sure that's why, as well. It was implemented in the 70's (a good bit before my time driving wise) as part of a response to the oil crisis in 1974.

I believe it's already begun and set to finish in time for the 2013-14 school year. Stoneleigh's students will be shuttled to Carver for the upcoming school year. However, I do recall speeding being a problem on Regester, and even with Stoneleigh ES out of the equation in the short term, students who live in Stoneleigh, Anneslie or Idlewylde do walk to Dumbarton Middle from there.

Thanks Tyler for explanation, but I just dont see the justification for a speed camera tied to Stoneleigh now (when it opens yes). Otherwise, its really just a neighborhood camera (which the state law and council law dont authorize) rather than a school zone camera (which they do). If the rationale is tied to Dumbarton Middle, the camera should be designated Dumbarton Middle, not Stoneleigh ES.

And there is already a speed camera designated for Rodgers Forge/Dumbarton Middle (eastbound).

I think they are just using Stoneleigh Elementary to justify a speed camera on Regester. Under construction or not, the school itself is half a mile from Regester.

I completely disagree - kids cross every day on the way to Towson High and Dubmarton. Additionally, with all the kids from Stoneleigh being bused and several of these stops being on Regester, it is extremely important to try and get the speeds down. I live on Regester and the speeding is out of control. We have been trying to get traffic calming for years and have been told that a camera is our only option. And if the camera does not take effect next year, it will be just in time for the students to return to Stoneleigh. Thank you for finally listening Chief Johnson.

I live on Regester and speeding is a huge issue...a long with cars with loud bass (kidding). Kids and parents who live in Anneslie and Idlewylde cross Regester to get to Stoneleigh Elementary at the intersection of Regester and Kenleigh. My guess is this is where the camera is going. So while it serves the neighborhood in general, it is tied directly to the foot traffic associated with the school. Whether or not it should go up while the school is under construction is another story, but not a worthwhile one.

I am sure there are people in Stoneleigh who want this camera, but I really dont see the justification for it now, speeding on Regester and Dumbarton MS walkers notwithstanding. From the BCPD's own website, "Baltimore County uses speed cameras to encourage motorists to slow down in school zones where traffic data and citizen complaints show that speeding is a problem. The use of speed cameras in Maryland - called the Safe Speed Automated Enforcement Program - was authorized by the Maryland General Assembly under Maryland Transportation Article 21-809. The Baltimore County Council passed legislation, Baltimore County-Bill 61-09, in 2009 authorizing the use of 15 speed cameras in school zones. In 2011, the Baltimore County Council amended this legislation (Bill 1-11 PDF) to allow additional cameras. ... In compliance with state law, Baltimore County's speed cameras operate Monday through Friday between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. Speed cameras remain in use during these hours throughout the summer months and on other weekdays when school is not in session. The need for motorists to drive carefully in school zones exists even when schools are not in session because school sites are used for summer school, recreation and parks activities, summer athletics and other child-oriented activities." The newly designated Stoneleigh ES speed camera doesnt fit that mold. If the speed camera is really tied to Dumbarton MS and allowed on that basis, it should be designated as such.

Taken from your post:

"The need for motorists to drive carefully in school zones exists even when schools are not in session because school sites are used for summer school, recreation and parks activities, summer athletics and other child-oriented activities."

Recreation and park activities - YES, applies
Summer athletics and other child-oriented activities - Yes, applies

Towson4Now, it that occuring at Stoneleigh ES now and is it projected to occur at the ES during renovation? If so, that changes things considerably. I would assume that liability issues would prevent use of the facilities for any purpose during construction.

The baseball field on the grounds is still frequently used and not sure about the fenced in blacktop area and play ground.

To be totally honest, I think it makes sense to put these in before kids show up to school so that traffic has time to adjust to the new speed deterrent. I'm really not a huge fan of speed cameras but when you look at a lot of the other crime happening it Towson...it makes sense to free up more officers. Maybe if the camera angle is right it will catch the people breaking in to my car.

Towson4Now, I think it makes perfect sense to put up the designated camera a month before the school reopens OR for the Chief to install that camera asap using either Towson High or Dumbarton MS as his justification if they fit the law. I just find it rather odd that Stoneleigh, an inactive school, was chosen now over other active schools with similar traffic issues.

Maybe people should just teach their kids how to cross the street. That's what my parents did and I never got run over once!

KBlue from what Tyler said they will be ready for the 2013 school year when the Stoneleigh kids will be in school here. This is a perfect location because so many children cross this road daily, it is too narrow for traffic calming, and there is a major problem with speeding on this residential street which is lovingly called the Regester Avenue freeway around here. Even if it were used to help the children who have activities at Dumbarton or at Overlook Park through Towson Rec Council, the fact is that this site was selected because there is an extreme need here. I recommend that any one who has an issue with the camera being located on our street, please just don't speed down our street and respect our wishes to make this road a safe place for the children who live here. As evidenced by our almost 700 seat population needed for our new elementary school, this area is filled with school age children.

Juliet, if the Stoneleigh designated camera isnt being installed until a month before the school and its facilities are reopened to the public, I believe that would be an acceptable application of the speed camera law. But before that, I dont see it. Did Tyler say when it was being installed? I have no doubt that speeding is a problem there and that there are many, many children in the neighborhood, but that is not the criteria for placement of school zone speed cameras nor the justification offered for enacting the laws authorizing them in the first place. Neighborhood cameras were not legislated. School zone cameras were. If the school and its facilities are inactive (even if the nearby Park or nearby schools are active), then the school zone classification should not apply to that inactive school. This is why I find it odd that Stoneleigh was chosen for placement at least a year out when there are other active, equally-deserving locations that could likewise benefit. For me, its an issue of timing, what the law was intended to effect and allow, and priorities.

Mike, your rationale would be justified if every driver restrained from driving distracted or driving beyond their ability ... safer cars unfortunately do not equal safer drivers. cars are not easily controlled at all speeds. Take the young man who ran into a tree on Greenspring Ave this weekend. I believe the speed limit there is 30-35. Alcohol was not a factor, excessive speed was.

Plus, crossing guards can't write tickets. Speed Cameras are an actual deterrent and enforcement tool.

And stop making People who drive with their foot through the firewall !

Just as in "guns don't kill, it's the shooter", the same can be said about cars.

So, now you're suggesting speeding is a new law?

Everyone knows that the Police don't have Balls (LOL)

If you were the slightest bit intelligent you would know the police have nothing to do with these cameras and they don't see the money..if you can't control the speed of your car, maybe of should be riding a bike.

the rationale is to make money.

Now this is a perfectly legitimate question.

Speed cameras in BC seem to be implemented with a specific purpose category: School or Construction Zones. Is this the specific word of the law passed, or is this simply the chosen implementation method - that can be arbitrarily changed by leadership on a whim?

The thing to remember is that crashes resulting from excessive speed usually don't stay on the road. So even if there are no crosswalks, speeders can still hit people off the road.

To protect 'Deer' crossing the road, of course !

Tim: To answer your question, the state when it passed the law authorizing locals to install the cameras in 2010 only authorized them in school or highway construction zones. The Baltimore County Council that same year passed a law authorizing them only in school zones in a certain radius and between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. year round.

The county could come back and authorize them in highway construction zones but could not place them in other areas, like a neighborhood street where there is no school unless the general assembly changes the state law.

Bryan - thanks for clarifying the specific law.

Mike, you are completely correct. I firmly believe that there are certain politicians who are getting paid off by the vendor (who is making the real money on these cameras). That is why they are being shoved down our throats in the name of "protecting the children" (the usual mantra).

try this place http://www.opensecrets.org/states/summary.php?state=MD

I think you've got it..!

wait, because people enjoy paying tickets?

Just put a computer chip in the skin of everyone that reports to the government and issue automatic arrests, fines, and imprisonment for all those even thinking about committing a crime. That is the world of Paul Amirault. Government can solve everything, therefore the constitution can be used as toilet paper because individual rights and freedom are meaningless. Since you believe that Government is the be-all and end-all, why don't you move to a Communist country and do us all a huge favor Paul?

Give it a rest. Did you even bother to read my post.

Two points:

1) Paul - you're making a HUGE logical leap from government collected money in the name of obvious safety concerns (construction zones, school zones, red light cameras) to just collecting money. Huge, and patently incorrect.

2) Moreover, it'll be PRIVATE insurance companies that integrate GPS into your cars - you know, those industries "Conservatives" support. It's already happening.

and asking Escariot to actually read and form coherent thoughts is quite honestly asking a lot.

Tim,
1) I don't believe so. I think the photo radar/hand held radar manufacturers saw an opportunity to market their products to governments in a new way. Photo radar has been around a long time. I have a feeling, although I have not seen the sales materials, they extolled the virtue of safety and probably quietly talked about revenue. I do not for one second believe the altruistic concerns of these manufacturers. I believe the larger the corporation, the less altruistic are their concerns. Make no mistake, photo radar camera makers are in it for the money.

2) Could be a chicken and egg scenario. I know at one time GEICO asked you if you owned a radar detector and would refuse coverage if you answered yes. The Catch-22 is if you answered no and had one, you have lied on your application and they could refuse your claim.

3) You're right on your last point.

Paul:

1) the thing is, you're purely speculating that this expansion is going to happen. Which in and of itself is OK to do, but label it as such.
Perhaps 'huge leap' isn't the most factaully accurate phrase to describe it, but you just think it's going to happen based on your own view. To date, all implementation of speed camera, as Bryan Sears verified for me yesterday, were limited to safety zones - schools and road construction sites. As of now, your opinion is just future speculation.
You're also making believe my view was based on photo manufacturers caring about safety. Of course they aren't, I never said they were. It's our politicians that are the ways that care more about it - and hey, if they can raise revenue at the same time, it's a double win.

2) How is more important then why for me, because conseravtives are the ones who 'want government out of private business', 'constantly farming us for money', and 'are always spying on them (sic)'. My point was that conservatives are going to get screwed and have their privacy infringed upon either way - so they can stop villainizing the government alone. The technology is in place now, and companies like Progressive are slowly phasing it in today.

The high schoolers know how to cross, but they are teens and thus feel they are all-important and impervious to injury or death. Not my teen, of course - she's perfect - just all the others!

I have talked to a few high school kids about crossing the street..I asked them which light do you cross with..Most of them responded "green light." I asked them if they use the button on the poles to help them cross.."NO" Some of the kids did not know what the button is for. I do not believe that some parents teach their children to cross. The kids are allowed to run the streets and just figure out how to get across. I taught my girls by crossing the streets with them several times.

Well, I'm not sure where Regester is, but it sounds like you have a whole community of jackholes driving around that area. People who drive like that and verbally abuse residents as well as totalling PARKED cars in areas with a 25mph speed limit shouldn't have licenses to begin with. That does NOT represent everyone as a whole and is still no excuse to expand these laws into areas that don't have these problems and have drivers with more sense. Punish THOSE people, not everyone else BECAUSE of those people.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with overtaking slower drivers provided it's not done in a reckless way. I'll overtake slow drivers all the time if I have both the time, space and speed to do so in a timely and safe manner without cutting anyone off. It sounds like the people who live in your neighborhood are a bunch of jacked up teenagers or impaired drivers who haven't the slightest clue how to drive a car. That does not mean you punish all of Baltimore County for their actions, you punish the ones doing the actions. There's plenty of people who can drive at 50 MPH safely without any problems and people who can drive 80 in the fast lane on the beltways without any problems. You punish the idiots more harshly, you don't level the blame and authority on everyone else. That's insanity and punishes the people who actually do know how to drive safely.

We have just the normal cross section of Towson area drivers. I was hoping the the introduction of speed cameras on residential streets like Regester would cause people to rethink their attitude to driving through other people's neighborhoods.

It is wholly unreasonable to expect to be able to drive 40-50 mph down residential streets lined with houses on both sides while the residents go about their daily business; pulling in and out of driveways, walking to school, walking dogs etc.

In many cases I agree the speed cameras are a hammer to crack a nut, but if people are so oblivious to the way they behave in other neighborhoods I don't know what the answer is other than more police patrols and harsher penalties for aggressive driving or behavior.

Mike, I too live on Regester and see the rampant and senseless speeding everyday. It's not just a few notches above 25, either, it's more like double that, routinely. The jackholes (love it) aren't generally part of our "whole community". The most visible offenders are usually from points east and south of the communities of Stoneleigh, Anneslie, Idlewylde, and Loch Hill who cut through our communities to get to York Road. And "cutting through" is fine, as long as the communities are respected and the speed limit is adhered to. Neither one occurs with any regularity. These are historic, well-maintained, and highly desirable communities, and the evolution of Regester into an expressway, slicing through them, is ruining that for those of us who have made an investment in them.

I believe they won't put speed humps on Regester due to it being an emergency route for fire crews. Ideally, traffic could be diverted to Walker Avenue which is wider with less homeowners and then the through traffic could flow from Walker to the Alameda. This won't happen though...and the value of the homes will go down and more people will retreat to No Balt Cnty

Parkville HIgh and Perry Hall High also have speed cameras installed in their school zones. I for one don't mind the speed cameras being installed in school zones. I would much rather have cell phone cameras installed to catch the morons who insist on texting while driving and swerving all over the road endangering everyone!

seriously concernedmom. Seriously.

I live right near Parkville High, and many of the students don't bother using the crosswalks, they must feel they are impervious to harm as they text/cell phone while crossing.

Anyone who tells you that these are about safety has not really looked at lower-cost alternatives that DO work. Traffic Calming, speed bumps, etc. in addition to crossing guards during the school year are some alternatives.

Of note, I'm disappointed that Councilman Marks' amendment for veto power on camera locations was dismissed out-of-hand. Big mistake, in my opinion.

Follow the money trail, you'll see it only leads to more $$$ for the camera makers. The County Council really got taken for a ride here.

10 over in a school (Wwhen in session) is "Attempted Homicide"!

Your comments make me smile..

Please explain how I could be tricked into hiring a prostitute or into buying drugs.

This should be good.

Let's just get rid of all the cops. Think about all the tax dollars we could save. Get rid of the fire department, too. Let the houses burn down. When insurance pays to rebuild, it will be worth more, so more tax dollars there, too. And who needs school teachers. Kids already know it all.

I'm sure your cousin walked out of court with you. I guess it's the police fault that the courts suck too. Maybe if your cousin wasn't a drug addict, the need for open air drug markets would be there.

As a City police officer explained to me once: crime pays.

Pays overtime (as stated). Pays for new police cars. Pays for radios. Guns. Bullets. Creates jobs building prisons, jobs for guards. Insurance companies selling policies to correctional and LEO employees. The list is endless.

Crime does indeed pay.

Not to change the subject, but crime in the US hardly pays compared to the Defense Department.

Haha how is that changing the subject????

Unfortunately, no. If memory serves me well, when the expansion bill was being considered, one of the Council members had suggested that the County's portion of the monies received from tickets be set aside exclusively for public safety or traditional traffic calming devices but that was nixed. Those monies go into the County's general fund to be used.

Is that how it works? Speed cameras reduce speeders, reduce the speed camera industry's profits, and what, the camera executives sit back and say "I'm sure glad we're making less money. It means we're Safer!". Not! The camera executives lobby (i.e. pay) their buddies in government to put up more cameras, in places maybe where the speed limit is unreasonable, heck go ahead and set up speed traps and put the cameras inside the trap. Heck, executives think outside the box. Make new camera-friendly laws. Nail those horrible monsters who spit on the pavement. Make it illegal to kiss in public, and catch those scoff-laws with private for-profit cameras. It's not like we haven't seen this before. Privatized prisons and then, gee, how did the U.S. get to have the largest per-capita prison population in the world? And most of the prisoners have no victims except themselves. It's because the prison lobby, and the prison guard union lobbym pay politicians to make more and more ridiculous crimes with longer and longer sentences. Or they put initiatives on the ballot and pay for lavish commercials about those horrible people who possess peanut butter. Put them away for life! It's for the children. That's how private, for-profit law enforcement works, It always has to make more money. It will do whatever it takes to increase crime.

Yeah right put a speed bump on South Rolling.

Well, it would provide lots of entertainment in the way of destroyed undercarriages and flying cars.

Speed bumps can be properly sized for the speed limit of the road. Undercarriages won't be destroyed and cars will not fly if they are going at the correct speed over a properly sized bump or hump.

The problem with speed bumps, is you cannot put them everywhere.

David Marks has already mentioned, for example, that speed bumps are not a viable option on Seven Courts road (where they are really needed) due to the fact that Seven Courts is a feeder road into several neighborhoods.

Don't get me wrong though, I am in favor of speed bumps where they are a practical solution.

Geoffrey: Only if you're a baddie driver.

Traffic Engineers are split on speed humps as they are antithetical to the goal of traffic science, which is too move cars as efficiently and safely as possible. Speed humps can cause loss of control which results in crashes. From an engineer's perspective, if you design a system with an intentional flaw that results in failure you should probably find another line of work.

I know of no examples of a 30 MPH road with speed bumps. In fact I think the criteria for traffic calming measures of that sort specify the speed limit be 25 or under.

Hey Geoffrey, they don't need to be traditional speed bumps. The rumble bumps similar to what they use on the approach to toll plazas on I95 would work very well to slow most people down.

They are the pacifier of those that support them...nothing more..

A cop cannot "trick" me into a paying a prostitute for sex. If a cop (or anyone else) offered to sell me drugs, I would simply refuse. I believe drugs, all drugs, should be legalized, but even if legal, I would not buy them.
Using a radar gun (or speed cameras) to catch people who make a conscious decision to speed is not the same thing. It is protecting me from the idiots who believe they can drive any way they want. I drive the speed limit. I am probably the car you are tailgating because I am not going as fast as you want. Learn to live with it. I am not pulling over to let you pass, and I am not speeding up to appease you.

I agree..

actually the politicians have us pretty split down the middle that's job security for them and keeps us bickering with each other so nothing gets done and they stay in office collecting their fat checks and benifits... benifits that you and i will never see

To awaken an apathetic public is a monumental task...it will take something major, like revolution...
America is no longer the greatest nation...we are blowing it at an ever increasing rate..

Obviously, I don't agree with much you just said, but I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine.
FYI, if you wish to reply to a reply to your post, just hit the reply button to your original post, and your new reply falls in line after it is accepted.

Sorry, pal, but if you think the ones obeying the law are the problem, you have a serious mental deficiency.

Well why do they teach you that in driving school then, hmm? Why is there a 12mph buffer? Yes, driving slower than everyone else on the road, you are a hazard if you have people passing you constantly. People have places to go. If they want to go 10mph over the speed limit, they can and know what else? It's not breaking the law, they are obeying the law all the same. The only difference is YOU disrupt the flow of traffic because you're going 5-10mph slower than everyone else making people change lanes and go around you. It does cause traffic jams on the highway too, are you saying traffic jams are a good thing as well?

Well said...thanks..

"please don't talk on your cell phone while you're driving for any longer than a minute or two (sometimes, it is necessary)"

There you go making up your own rules again. It is never "necessary" to talk on the phone while driving (pull over or ignore the call). Secondly, the law says don't do it. The law does not say it is OK for a minute or two.

Especially if you are going 12 miles over the limit.

Personally, other tim, I never answer my phone when I'm driving and IF I do, it's less than 10 seconds which is RARE. I hate talking on the phone while driving and I never text while driving, so there.

did anyone ever stop to think that the speed limits are set knowing that they are going to be to a large extent exceeded by 7-10 mph?hence the 12 mph grace

with that in mind you start to see how the general public is being manipulated or to put it another way WE ARE BEING CONTROLED and don't even know it

I am starting to believe that what you post leans a little towards sarcasm. Please tell me this is true, and that you really don't believe all the crap you have been posting.

If you really feel this way, you are a menace.

No, it's not sarcasm. It's called common sense which people seem to have completely forgotten how to use or even what it means to use common sense. Elderly drivers are some of the WORST drivers on the road, EASILY. Their reaction time is slower than a slug, they certainly don't know how to merge, they leave their turn signal on for miles confusing drivers and it takes them five minutes to make a lane change even when someone is letting them over.

We recognize that some people are smarter than others, that's why we have IQ tests, so why can't there be recognition for people who are better drivers than others and should have more leeway on the roads. In car racing, bad drivers cause accidents and good drivers avoid them. There are good drivers and bad drivers, so why should they all be treated the same? Bad drivers should be either going to school to learn how to be better drivers or they should be the ones being pulled over. GOOD DRIVERS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BECAUSE OF BAD DRIVERS. That is the point. They should be dealt with on an individual basis, not this blanket application of "well one person drives bad, so we should act like everyone drives bad." Good drivers should not be punished because of the bad drivers. I don't get tickets and I regularly go 10 mph over the limit, more if on the highway, I overtake slower cars all the time without cutting people off and have never had a close call with an accident since I was 17 (young and dumb).

..and considering all the bad driving that has been brought up in this thread witnessed by others, it's a little insulting to be lumped in with them. I am a safe driver, my clean record proves it, my car insurance is minimal. Matter of fact, just last night, I was going 10-12mph over the limit down old harford road, just joyriding around the neighborhood on a nice night. I came back around to take a ride down Summit Ave when I saw flashing police lights in the distance which were two cops who had an SUV pulled over. I had driven down this road, 10-12 over not even two minutes prior. Those cops HAD to had been there, I HAD to have passed them and I didn't get pulled over. If you are going 20 over the limit, pull them over which is probably what that guy was doing. I pass cops all the time and never get pulled over, I'll even pass a cop on the road who's going slower than I am so long as it's within the 12 mph buffer and I don't get pulled over and you're calling ME a menace? No, I am the voice of common sense and you apparently don't understand that language anymore.

I think I figured out who you are. You are the guy who honked at me when I stopped at a STOP sign, even though nobody was coming. You must think it's not necessary to really stop. Slow down a hair should be good enough.
But please, before you go out and drive 80mph while talking on the phone, take time to calm down. Apparently I am irritating you.

Other tim, you are annoying me a little only because you are making assumptions about me that aren't true. First off, with the cell phone, a 10 second call consists of something like my girlfriend or mother calling me to tell me to pick something up at the store on the way home. The convo goes something like this:

Hello?
Hey, could you pick me up some milk on your way home?
Sure thing, I'll be home soon. Talk to you later, I'm driving right now.
Ok then, see you soon.
Ok, bye

That's it. If a friend calls me and wants to talk, I immediately tell them "I'm driving, I'll call you back when I get to where I'm going" and hang up the phone. That is the extent of my cell phone talking while driving and during those times, I slow down my speed significantly until I am done.

Secondly, I rarely honk my horn and never at stop signs because, well, you're supposed to stop. Matter of fact, I'm the guy that waves people to go ahead of me at four way stops just to avoid confusion. I'm the guy who stops and at stop lights to leave room for people to exit nearby places of business instead of blocking the entrance and let people out. I'm the guy who will pull up as far as I can to let a car behind me slip past me into the turn only lane so he can get on with his life. I am a safe driver and a compassionate driver and I look out for others on the road.

I will always come to a complete stop at a stop sign, well almost, unless it's completely obvious I'm the only one at the stop sign, then maybe I'll coast through it at 5mph or slower, but the only time I use my horn is when a light turns green and the guy in front of me is just sitting there. My honk is a "tap" just to say "Hey, the light is green, pay attention". I never lay on my horn at any time unless someone cuts me off or is driving like an idiot risking accidents which is a very rare occurance. I don't use my horn very often.

So, I don't drive 80mph on my phone. I'd much rather have music playing than talking on a phone. I don't really like talking on the phone anyway even if I'm at home. If it seems I am getting annoyed with you, it's because you are making wild assumptions about me that are not true based on nothing. :)

You NEVER answer your phone while driving, but if you do, it's for less than 10 seconds. You only exceed the speed limit by 12@MPH (which you were taught in driving school?) unless you are going OVER 80MPH. You will ALWAYS come to a complete stop at a stop sign, except when you don't want to. When you talk on the cell phone while driving, you slow down your speed SIGNIFICANTLY until you are done, thereby being the slow driver that causes the accidents.
Do you actually read what you write?

LOL You are impossible. I'm just going to end this conversation now. You want to believe I'm a bad driver, have at it. I could care less anymore. I don't get pulled over, I have a clean record, I NEVER have people honking at me, I am courtious to other drivers and I don't drive recklessly. You want to act like a child and turn every little thing around on me to make me look bad, have at it. You make yourself look a lot worse than you make me look which is fine with me. :) Yeah because we all know if I talk on the phone for 10 seconds, I slam on my brakes immediately. You're completely devoid of common sense and rational thinking and are just hell bent on taking out this pent up rage you have against drivers that personally affect you on me.

I am a safe driver, I know I am, my record speaks for itself, I don't get into accidents, I don't get speeding tickets and I get thank you's all the time (the waves) from other drivers who I let in front of me who are changing lanes or exiting ther 7-11 or gas station near a traffic light that I stopped early for to let out.

Yep "other tim", you're right, I'm the worst driver in the world and so long as it makes you feel better, you can go to sleep tonight knowing I'm the one causing all the problems on the road. You have issues, seriously. You're personally attacking me, so obviously, you can't have a conversation like an adult anyway. I'm done with this convo with you now. Sweet dreams, my friend. LOL

Just when we were starting to have fun. Take your ball and go home. Ta ta.

Obviously, your idea of "fun" differs from mine. I love a good debate and was enjoying ours until the personal attacks came. You don't seem to have a rational thinking mind or if you do, you hide it well.

I'm sorry for all the things you've been through with bad drivers, but none of the things you mentioned are things I would do to you or anyone else. Most of them are disrespectful IMO such as tailgating or laying on the horn. That's not me.

I still stand by my comments though and by the way, you know how many times I talk on my cell phone in my car a month? On average. less than once because people know not to call me when I'm on the road and if I answer, it would only be if I was at a red light, at a backed up stop sign, or in the middle of open road. "Significantly slow down" to me means lower my engine RPM's from, for example, 2.5 to 1.8 and coasting instead of speeding up. Ten seconds or less, I can handle, but I hardly ever talk on my cell phone in my car. Probably less than five times a year. I simply don't do it unless I think it's important enough to answer or I can handle it quickly. I see people all the time talking on their phones in their cars, all the time with the phone to the ear. THOSE are the people you should direct your anger to, not me.