249
Man cruising means something very different in California than elsewhere
Get in your expensive machine and consume some fuel, brought to you by the car and oil industry. It’s not marketing it’s culture!
It’s not marketing it’s culture!
Correct
A culture of mindless consumption is not worth having
It's not mindless though
No it’s consumption for consumption’s sake.
That's not why people are doing it lol
Sorry driving around does not make you cultured just makes you traffic. Real hobbies require more skills than using a credit card.
Nobody said anything about being cultured lol. It's just people having fun
By being obnoxious with loud cars causing traffic. That’s what losers do
It's unfortunate that you don't like how they're having fun
I like clean air and a quiet neighborhood. Shame they can’t understand that. However i understand that no one would even acknowledge their existence if they weren’t obnoxious because they are losers.
Right
I grew up in CA in one of the most popular cruising areas around.
Cruising was simply just being out, being seen, and checking everyone out. Yeah, if you had a cool car it was a bonus, but it never really mattered what you showed up in. Yelling at your friends when you passed, pulling over to grab a burger when you saw some friends doing the same, it was just a big hangout scene. Bumper-to-bumper traffic on Friday and Saturday nights on about a mile or so of road from about 8-11 pm. It was a big tradition for decades in our town, people from outside towns and even larger areas would come hang out.
No, it wasn’t all innocent. Always some fuckers gotta start shit. Aggro assholes starting fights because reasons. Looked at each other wrong. Revved an engine too loud. Tailgated. Whatever, stupid fuckers. Drinking. Gangs were a pretty big thing and they’d show up and start some gang shit sometimes. Got pretty bad and they lowered the banhammer because they got sick of dealing with the assholes and killed cruising.
Newsom signed AB 436, which will prohibit cities from enacting new laws restricting the display of customized classic cars by cruising on city streets.
Not sure what the point is. “New laws”. There’s already a shitload of laws banning cruising, so it seems worthless to stop water that’s already passed under the bridge.
His new law does the opposite, it makes those cruising bans illegal.
load more comments
(3 replies)
And here's the diffs to the law code.
Here are the two most significant paragraphs that were removed:
The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall regulate cruising, which is the repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a traffic control point in traffic that is congested at or near the traffic control point, as determined by the ranking peace officer on duty within the affected area, within a specified time period and after the vehicle operator has been given an adequate written notice that further driving past the control point will be a violation of the ordinance or resolution.
[...]
It is unlawful to operate any passenger vehicle, or commercial vehicle under 6,000 pounds, which has been modified from the original design so that any portion of the vehicle, other than the wheels, has less clearance from the surface of a level roadway than the clearance between the roadway and the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel in contact with the roadway.
the lowermost portion of any rim of any wheel
Is that why the skinny tires became a thing? To make lowriders legal by getting the rim of the tire as close as possible?
Sorry, but IDGaF about Newsome anymore. He has been vetoing some good bills lately, and while this is probably long overdue for repeal, it feels like a wink to oil companies in light of his other recent actions.
Pander harder, Gavin. Unless you demonstrate a better pattern of behavior, you won't get my vote in the primaries.
He's a mixed bag. He's totally moving to the center so he can run in 2028. Totally disappointed with him
He's out of his mind if he thinks any conservative is going to be interested in him as a centrist. Just the word "California" makes conservatives in my area shudder.
Reagan did it
That was a very diffrent California, and one that hadn't been the avitar of conservative hate for decades. Cali governor is a bad place to run from
load more comments
(4 replies)
He just approved speed cameras in the state. He's dead to me now.
Controversial opinion here, I have no problems with speed cameras. Speed cameras only ticket people breaking the law unbiasedly. The easiest way to not get a speeding ticket, is to not speed. That's it.
My only problem is when the ticket is set to low, as in a ticket is issued within 10% or the speed limit. There has to be room for error between speedometer, tire size, and just human error.
If you can't maintain a reasonable speed in the posted area, then you shouldn't be on the road. If you can and you excessively speed anyway, then fuck you, take your ticket.
This opinion comes from someone who consistently speeds, but keeps it in relatively close.
Imo it's just a bullshit revenue generator, and an invasion of privacy/expansion of the surveillance state. Cops should only be focused reckless drivers, drunk drivers, and people on their phones that are actually putting people in danger. Someone accidentally doing 35 in a 25 isn't a danger. I haven't gotten a speeding ticket in over a decade, and I'm a very safe driver. I can almost guarantee once these go into effect, they will put them in places where the flow of traffic is generally not going the speed limit on most days, and just rake in money. I'll probably start getting tickets, and it will impact my insurance premiums.
Someone accidentally doing 35 in a 25 isn't a danger.
Unless you're a pedestrian of course. That's approximately the difference between a 25% and a 50% fatality rate
Pedestrians in California? Do tell.
School areas are 25 mph. Kids from elementary through high school are walking to and from school in my town of ~150,000.
How often do you "accidentally" go 10 mph over the speed limit, especially in locations that you frequently travel? I live in a state that has speed and red light cameras. In my city I can specifically point to at least 7, 2 on my commute to work. I've never got a ticket from any of them. Legally, there has to be signs around that say there is photo enforcement. If you're paying attention to the road, like you should be when driving, there is almost no excuse for getting a speed camera ticket. Sure it's a revenue generator, and I very much subscribe to, "all cops are bad" but that doesn't change the fact that it's enforcing laws with absolutely no bias. I've never seen a traffic camera shoot an unarmed civilian at a routine traffic stop and they are effective at slowing traffic in those areas, anecdotally speaking.
Not arguing with your main point, but "absolutely no bias" is a stretch. The camera itself may not be biased, but other factors like camera placement, street design, and fines that aren't scaled to income mean they still disproportionately impact black, brown, and poor people.
Highway 280 in the bay area was designed for high speed driving according to my uncle who was a caltrans engineer. He says it was designed for 80 mph speed limit in some parts. I'm trying to find a source on that, but found mostly reddit posts saying the same. If you go 65, you will be tailgated. Some people here call it "Do 80" and the traffic flows at 75 -80 mph. The people who are actually putting people in danger on that road will be going 90+. Highway 5 as well as highway 99 traffic routinely flows at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit as well. 10 mph is negligible for highway driving imo. I rarely even look at my speedometer when driving, just go with the flow, move to the right if someone is coming up driving faster, pass on the left when applicable. That's how it should be, not having people try to focus on going some arbitrary number. People should be focusing on the road, not the speedometer. The biggest danger to drivers and pedestrians is people under the influence, people on their phones, and reckless drivers who change lanes frequently and tailgate people. We should be focusing our efforts there if we want safer roads, but the state doesn't want that, they want revenue. Instead of going after true nuisance drivers, their solution is to put cameras that catch anyone going above an arbitrary number and give them a ticket. It's bullshit.
I can almost guarantee once these go into effect, they will put them in places where the flow of traffic is generally not going the speed limit on most days
So you are saying they will put these cameras in places where a lot of people are breaking the speed limit?
That's not how speed limits work. They are legally required to be raised if traffic is going faster:
"Once the road is built, engineers will evaluate the existing speeds by measuring the operating speed. They often do this by measuring the speed that 85 percent of drivers are travelling at or below, called 85th percentile speed."
Per federal FHWS/MUTCD regulations.
Tell me 1 instance of a freeway that raised speed in recent years. Practically every freeway in CA that's not the 5 has a 65 mph limit. Traffic absolutely doesn't flow at that speed on a bunch of them.
No, I'm saying we have low speed limits relative to what's actually a safe driving speed, and putting a camera there to punish everyone for driving as they normally do is a shitty move.
The last thing we need in this hellscape are more fucking cameras
I'm just some white pedestrian- I like the idea of speed cameras in the city as a deterrent but other than that I'm not sure how I feel.
The way I heard it was:
Speed cameras reduce traffic stops which reduce unnecessary police interactions and violence. So it's commendable
But it obviously increases the surveillance state, which is disgusting
Not sure how to weigh those against each other.
Looks like we might have a sequel to American Graffiti soon.
I live where that was filmed. McHenry is gonna suck even harder if people start cruising again. Shit's already got a lot of traffic without people just driving around for the hell of it.
As someone who doesn't know what the slang means what am I now expected to see in Los Angeles (I understand this was lifted in some places already)
Vatos driving low and hella slow, probably. Not like LA moves any faster anyhow.
Man, our country doesn't have basic things like universal healthcare, and this is what the leaders are working on...
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
249 points (95.9% liked)
politics
18928 readers
3049 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS