Pulled Over Twice in One Day: My Red Mitsubishi 3000GT Story

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I would be interested in the stats on colour.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm curious. Do you have citation or a link to a site where you got this information from? You don't just wander around having this stuff memorised, do you?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/which-drivers-get-the-most-tickets.aspx
it's from research done by an insurance company. I found the company but couldn't find the research on their site lol.

 

[GeorginaS]

Personally, I would be interested in the stats on colour.

Well, hrm. Okay. I'll try out my Google-fu and see what I come up with.

Snopes claims it's an urban legend that red cars attract more speeding tickets. Weirdly, I kind of trust them as an information source.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/redcars.asp"

MSN Money has an article entitled http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/8TopTrafficTicketMyths.aspx" in which they address the alleged myth about red cars getting more speeding tickets. The article cites a website called Color Matters as an information source for their material, but the Color Matters site is a message board where people discuss (and dissect) color questions but no one seems to provide anything other than anecdotal evidence and/or claims to have done or read research but doesn't provide any links or sources to follow-up with.

Okay, okay. This might be more credible, even.

An article on edmunds.com entitled Traffic Ticket Urban Legends has this to say


The "Red Car Bias" Myth #1: A commonly held misperception is that red cars tend to receive more speeding tickets than do cars of other colors because of their flashiness. There's also the supposed optical illusion created by their color that makes the cars appear to be going faster than they really are. These are both fascinating theories, but the fact is, according to Carolyn Gorman, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute and Insurance Trade Association, "there is no data to support the assertion that red cars receive more traffic tickets than cars of any other color." Still, the urban legend has been so widely accepted in American society that it has spawned the driving myth discussed below.

(Emphasis mine. I would think that this woman likely has some cred, yes?)


The "Red Car Bias" Myth #2: One can't help wonder how many car buyers have shied away from red cars because they believed owning one would cause higher insurance rates than those commanded by cars of other colors. However, even though some studies have suggested red cars are involved in a disproportionate number of accidents, according to Gorman, "there are no major insurance companies that consider car color when determining your rates." Basically, says Gorman, what it comes down to is "people with good driving records and who also drive safe vehicles typically have the lowest car insurance premiums."

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/youngdrivers/articles/125550/article.html"

'Kay. For my own sake, I needed to follow-up with the authority of someone from the Insurance Information Institute. They appear to be an unbiased third party whose mandate is to collect and disseminate information about insurance to the public.

The mission of the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) is to improve public understanding of insurance -- what it does and how it works.

For more than 40 years, the I.I.I. has provided definitive insurance information. Today, the I.I.I. is recognized by the media, governments, regulatory organizations, universities and the public as a primary source of information, analysis and referral concerning insurance.

http://www.iii.org/about/"

They appear reliable.

 

[GeorginaS]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/which-drivers-get-the-most-tickets.aspx
it's from research done by an insurance company. I found the company but couldn't find the research on their site lol.

Ah. Hrm. Funny how they'll do that, huh?

Do you have two accounts, or did you go digging for someone else?

 

[Sorry!]

Ah. Hrm. Funny how they'll do that, huh?

Do you have two accounts, or did you go digging for someone else?

Lol I went to look it up after they posted and you requested the source. I was interested in it as well . Why would I use two accounts when I've had this one for a few years now .

 

[GeorginaS]

Lol I went to look it up after they posted and you requested the source. I was interested in it as well . Why would I use two accounts when I've had this one for a few years now .

Dunno, just curious. I asked someone a question and someone else answered. Not saying you can't do that, it just momentarily puzzled me. That's all.

And, a summation for DaveC, it would appear that there aren't stats on red cars and speeding tickets because there is no correlation or causation, and therefore the stats don't exist because the event doesn't exist.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't think the question is whether red cars, overall, get more tickets than other colors of car, since those who are majorly exceeding the speed limit (20 or more over on a highway) are going to get pulled over no matter what they are driving. What I'm more curious about is whether red cars (or sports cars) get pulled out of the crowd more often for small amounts over the limit...less than 10 mph over on a highway. The OP himself didn't get tickets, but did get pulled over (his friend got the ticket) and given a warning. I almost wonder if they do it as an unconscious preventative measure...not giving a ticket, but pulling them over to basically suggest, "I think you're going to be trouble driving that red sportscar, because people who like to drive fast buy them, so I'm letting you know I'm watching you, so don't try anything funny on this road."

I don't think warnings are tracked. The insurance industry only tracks actual tickets for moving violations so they can tack on more surcharges, but I don't even know if warnings get logged anywhere.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't think the question is whether red cars, overall, get more tickets than other colors of car, since those who are majorly exceeding the speed limit (20 or more over on a highway) are going to get pulled over no matter what they are driving. What I'm more curious about is whether red cars (or sports cars) get pulled out of the crowd more often for small amounts over the limit...less than 10 mph over on a highway. The OP himself didn't get tickets, but did get pulled over (his friend got the ticket) and given a warning. I almost wonder if they do it as an unconscious preventative measure...not giving a ticket, but pulling them over to basically suggest, "I think you're going to be trouble driving that red sportscar, because people who like to drive fast buy them, so I'm letting you know I'm watching you, so don't try anything funny on this road."

I don't think warnings are tracked. The insurance industry only tracks actual tickets for moving violations so they can tack on more surcharges, but I don't even know if warnings get logged anywhere.

Anything that brings undue attention to yourself will get you pulled more often, you may not get busted for anything but if you are doing something that isn't 100% above board its stands to reason that the more conspicuous you are the more likely you are to get pulled.

The things that are most likely to give the dibble a reason to pull you over even if you are doing nothing wrong (from experiences I've seen/had/heard about) are:

overly loud exhaust
overly loud music
highly modified cars
prestige cars (I suspect just so they can have a peek)
bright coloured sports car

I'm not claiming this to be accurate, just my observations.

 

[DaveC426913]

The things that are most likely to give the dibble a reason to pull you over even if you are doing nothing wrong (from experiences I've seen/had/heard about) are:

What is a "dibble"?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think the question is whether red cars, overall, get more tickets than other colors of car, since those who are majorly exceeding the speed limit (20 or more over on a highway) are going to get pulled over no matter what they are driving. What I'm more curious about is whether red cars (or sports cars) get pulled out of the crowd more often for small amounts over the limit...less than 10 mph over on a highway. The OP himself didn't get tickets, but did get pulled over (his friend got the ticket) and given a warning. I almost wonder if they do it as an unconscious preventative measure...not giving a ticket, but pulling them over to basically suggest, "I think you're going to be trouble driving that red sportscar, because people who like to drive fast buy them, so I'm letting you know I'm watching you, so don't try anything funny on this road."

I don't think warnings are tracked. The insurance industry only tracks actual tickets for moving violations so they can tack on more surcharges, but I don't even know if warnings get logged anywhere.

I think the idea though is that, if a type of car is singled out for whatever purpose, that should still show up in how many tickets are issued. Unless there is a subsequent "de-correlation" of these two things.

I would find it implausible that cops are targeting certian vehicles for warnings only, without it resulting in statistically more tickets.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, with the introduction of actual data, I am satisfied that neither model nor colour is a factor in being pulled over.

Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...

 

[xxChrisxx]

What is a "dibble"?

I guess it must be more regional slang than I thought, it's a police officer. I think it originated from Officer Dibble, from the fantastic Top Cat cartoons.

Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...

If anything the casue and effect seems more plausible this way round.

 

[DaveC426913]

I guess it must be more regional slang than I thought, it's a police officer.

Ah. You're from Planet England. That explains it.

 

[hamster143]

Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...

As always, everything is intercorrelated and it's tough to untangle causes and effects.

Here's my theory.

Cops tend to profile. They disproportionately harass cars known to be popular among bad drivers. Subaru Impreza STi is a sports car and Porsche Boxster is a sports car, but the STi is more likely to be pulled over for going 68 in 60, because the cop will expect the STi to be driven by a twentysomething and the average age of Boxster's driver is in the low 40's. Visible/audible mods such as modified exhaust are indicative of immature drivers, they make you more likely to get pulled over.

On top of that, cops don't like foreign makes, particularly luxury European makes (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche), and particularly in the hinterland. If you're in LA, a BMW 3-series may not stand out much (everyone and their cousin drives one). Try to drive the same 3-series from Dallas to Wichita, chances are, you'll get pulled over a couple of times even if you go 65 on cruise control all the way.

 

[Borek]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dibble

 

[leroyjenkens]

This isn't a fight. leroy's discussion style simply needs some work if he's to be taken seriously. I'm just not being very patient about it.

You cherry-pick pieces of posts you want to address, then for the rest of it, you find reasons why you're not obligated to. You respond until you find a point where you can't think of a legitimate response, so you then begin to say the person's argument is invalid because <insert cop out>.
Instead of addressing my argument, you start addressing my debating style. You cite fallacies so often, I thought you'd recognize when you're guilty of one.

 

[DaveC426913]

You cherry-pick pieces of posts you want to address, then for the rest of it, you find reasons why you're not obligated to. You respond until you find a point where you can't think of a legitimate response, so you then begin to say the person's argument is invalid because <insert cop out>.
Instead of addressing my argument, you start addressing my debating style. You cite fallacies so often, I thought you'd recognize when you're guilty of one.

I'll correct myself. I'm not criticizing your style, I'm criticizing your inclination (or ability) to form valid arguments, and to induce logical conclusions from given premises.

The onus is on you to assemble valid arguments. I can't argue your points if they haven't been constructed well.

A common example is when a foregone conclusion is inherent in the question. For example "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" This question cannot be answered logically. The only response to declare the question as invalid. (You did this with the "concurrent reality" conclusion).



If this happens often enough, and the questioner does not seem to realize what they are doing, then one must ask if they are being obtuse.

I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.

That's easy. You answer it with a statement. "I have never, at any point, beaten my girlfriend"

That's the only way to answer a loaded question. If you asked for a yes or no answer, it would be impossible.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I'll correct myself. I'm not criticizing your style, I'm criticizing your inclination (or ability) to form valid arguments, and to induce logical conclusions from given premises.

The onus is on you to assemble valid arguments. I can't argue your points if they haven't been constructed well.

A common example is when a foregone conclusion is inherent in the question. For example "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" This question cannot be answered logically. The only response to declare the question as invalid. (You did this with the "concurrent reality" conclusion).

You asked me if my friend did the same 7 MPH over in a different car. For that to be a legitimate comparison, he would have had to drive a different car, at the same speed, on the same road, at the exact same time. Otherwise the time difference would have affected the results. You even said "oh right, you have no comparison". Indicating it's impossible for that to have happened. I have an example, yet you shoot it down because I don't have a comparison of him doing 7 over in a different car, yet everyone else who has an example that complies with your opinion, is perfectly valid and requires no comparisons.

So because you didn't like that question, the entire post and all subsequent posts of mine are automatically invalid, and I'm hence forth no longer able to make a logical argument?

I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.

I'm not saying you're evading one single question. Ignore the "concurrent reality" question, since you're so fixated on it. But you still have several posts of arguments that you also ignored that don't include the "concurrent realities" question.

That's easy. You answer it with a statement. "I have never, at any point, beaten my girlfriend"

That's the only way to answer a loaded question. If you asked for a yes or no answer, it would be impossible.

Which would be the response of someone who debates properly and not someone just looking for an out.