The hot traffic court story of the week is Vikings running back Adrian Peterson ticketed for going 109 mph in a 55 zone. See the story on ESPN.
My favorite quote from the story is this from Peterson: I need to be more aware of the speed I was going ....
I should add this to my speeding ticket excuses post, because I've heard it before. "I didn't realize I was going that fast."
Maybe this excuse makes sense when you're ticketed for 80 in a 55. But if you're going over 100 mph, you really should know. I had one guy ticketed for ... I'm not kidding ... 125 mph. He said he didn't realize he was going that fast.
Look, if you're going to drive at speeds that high, please be aware of what you're doing. While it may be dangerous to drive at such speeds in general, it's definitely more dangerous if you're not paying attention.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Adsense Ads and Bounce Rate
Do AdSense ads increase the bounce rate?
I've heard concerns about AdSense making a site look spammy in the past, and saw the idea mentioned in this discussion about link building and advertising.
The concern some in the SEO community have is that webmasters will not want to link to sites that have ads on them. There are varied reasons discussed in the above forum. One that stands out to me looks like a myth:
keep in mind ... bounce rate and ... the presence of adsense ads. ... some users ... hit the back button on some sites with adsense.
That's an interesting theory. Bounce rate refers to the percentage of users who leave a site right after landing on it, as opposed to those who visit other pages of the site. Some people think a high bounce rate is a bad thing.
Well, I checked this theory on my Traffic Court website. We have AdSense ads in most states but not all.
Let's start with New York - it's our original and biggest state, and we generally do not use Google ads on the NY pages of the site. I ran Analytics for a set period of time. See the image below - I use the Content by Title display and have my page titles set up so that this is a good (though not perfect) way of catching all pages from a particular state.
The bounce rate for NY for this period was about 67%.
Similarly we have little or no Google ads in New Jersey, and the bounce rate is about 69%:
Now let's look at two states that do have a lot of Google ads. First, Texas:
The bounce rate for Texas is actually lower - 65%. And let's check California also:
The bounce rate for California is lower still, at 64%.
Since the page title method is imperfect, I also looked at the Analytics Map Overlay to compare bounce rates for visitors from different states. This is another imperfect measure, but it may be helpful. Click on the image to enlarge if you can't read it.
Again, NY and NJ, which have almost no AdSense ads, have higher bounce rates than visitors coming from other states that do have AdSense ads - here California and Pennsylvania.
Based on these results, it would seem that the presence of AdSense ads has a minimal impact on bounce rate, and if anything it lowers it.
I'd love to read comments from others about this. What do you think about the impact of AdSense ads on bounce rate? Can you supply any numbers from your own web stats that would shed more light?
I've heard concerns about AdSense making a site look spammy in the past, and saw the idea mentioned in this discussion about link building and advertising.
The concern some in the SEO community have is that webmasters will not want to link to sites that have ads on them. There are varied reasons discussed in the above forum. One that stands out to me looks like a myth:
keep in mind ... bounce rate and ... the presence of adsense ads. ... some users ... hit the back button on some sites with adsense.
That's an interesting theory. Bounce rate refers to the percentage of users who leave a site right after landing on it, as opposed to those who visit other pages of the site. Some people think a high bounce rate is a bad thing.
Well, I checked this theory on my Traffic Court website. We have AdSense ads in most states but not all.
Let's start with New York - it's our original and biggest state, and we generally do not use Google ads on the NY pages of the site. I ran Analytics for a set period of time. See the image below - I use the Content by Title display and have my page titles set up so that this is a good (though not perfect) way of catching all pages from a particular state.
The bounce rate for NY for this period was about 67%.
Similarly we have little or no Google ads in New Jersey, and the bounce rate is about 69%:
Now let's look at two states that do have a lot of Google ads. First, Texas:
The bounce rate for Texas is actually lower - 65%. And let's check California also:
The bounce rate for California is lower still, at 64%.
Since the page title method is imperfect, I also looked at the Analytics Map Overlay to compare bounce rates for visitors from different states. This is another imperfect measure, but it may be helpful. Click on the image to enlarge if you can't read it.
Again, NY and NJ, which have almost no AdSense ads, have higher bounce rates than visitors coming from other states that do have AdSense ads - here California and Pennsylvania.
Based on these results, it would seem that the presence of AdSense ads has a minimal impact on bounce rate, and if anything it lowers it.
I'd love to read comments from others about this. What do you think about the impact of AdSense ads on bounce rate? Can you supply any numbers from your own web stats that would shed more light?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Traffic Lawyer Directory Statistics
Noticed an interesting set of statistics about our directory of traffic lawyers just now.
The image below shows the number of visits to the various pages within the directory. Click on the image to enlarge it. The stats are for the last October 21 to November 20.
Most interesting numbers:
a. 11,424 total pageviews and 7737 unique pageviews. As a rough guess, it looks like maybe 5000 people a month use the lawyer directory.
b. Nassau County District Court must be very busy. There were 175 unique pageviews for the lawyers page for that court.
c. Same for the Rancho Cucamonga Court - a Superior Court in San Bernardino County, California -- 131 unique pageviews.
d. The dropoff from those two courts is big. The Jersey City Court at 81 unique and Nassau County Traffic Court at 71 unique views. You can see that in the second image.
e. After the top, there's a strong middle class. Lots of courts getting lots of views. Among the top 25 are three courts in the Albany area with over 30 unique views each.
And the next image is specific to courts only. Again, click to enlarge:
Some observations:
1. County pages, in general, get more traffic than court pages.
The lawyer directory does not contain many court pages. The site is set up so that a court page is created only when a lawyer indicates in their profile that they handle that particular court. And yes, there is a reason I set it up that way.
You can see that "241 page titles were viewed" in the stats for courts. That probably means lawyers have indicated those 241 courts in their profiles, and maybe a few more that just didn't get any views.
Similarly, counties only appear in the directory when a lawyer has indicated she handles cases in that county.
2. There's a lot of people looking for lawyers on our site. I'm surprised more lawyers haven't signed up for the directory. With all the web sites out there drilling lawyers for big money to be on their sites, you'd think a free opportunity would be attractive.
You lawyers know which courts are busy in your area. Sign up for the site and list yourself for the busy courts around you. We have one lawyer in all of Pennsylvania, and the state is one of the top states on our site. No one has listed themselves in the Philadelphia area even though two of those court pages get a lot of visits.
Lawyers can register on the traffic lawyers registration page.
The image below shows the number of visits to the various pages within the directory. Click on the image to enlarge it. The stats are for the last October 21 to November 20.
Most interesting numbers:
a. 11,424 total pageviews and 7737 unique pageviews. As a rough guess, it looks like maybe 5000 people a month use the lawyer directory.
b. Nassau County District Court must be very busy. There were 175 unique pageviews for the lawyers page for that court.
c. Same for the Rancho Cucamonga Court - a Superior Court in San Bernardino County, California -- 131 unique pageviews.
d. The dropoff from those two courts is big. The Jersey City Court at 81 unique and Nassau County Traffic Court at 71 unique views. You can see that in the second image.
e. After the top, there's a strong middle class. Lots of courts getting lots of views. Among the top 25 are three courts in the Albany area with over 30 unique views each.
And the next image is specific to courts only. Again, click to enlarge:
Some observations:
1. County pages, in general, get more traffic than court pages.
The lawyer directory does not contain many court pages. The site is set up so that a court page is created only when a lawyer indicates in their profile that they handle that particular court. And yes, there is a reason I set it up that way.
You can see that "241 page titles were viewed" in the stats for courts. That probably means lawyers have indicated those 241 courts in their profiles, and maybe a few more that just didn't get any views.
Similarly, counties only appear in the directory when a lawyer has indicated she handles cases in that county.
2. There's a lot of people looking for lawyers on our site. I'm surprised more lawyers haven't signed up for the directory. With all the web sites out there drilling lawyers for big money to be on their sites, you'd think a free opportunity would be attractive.
You lawyers know which courts are busy in your area. Sign up for the site and list yourself for the busy courts around you. We have one lawyer in all of Pennsylvania, and the state is one of the top states on our site. No one has listed themselves in the Philadelphia area even though two of those court pages get a lot of visits.
Lawyers can register on the traffic lawyers registration page.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Texas speeding and traffic fines and points
Searching the web for something else, we came across the image below. It describes the fine and point schedule for Texas traffic tickets. If you click on it, it should enlarge.
Looks like on the high end, it's almost $500 for a very high speed in a work zone with workers present. On the low end, a low speed is $158.
As for points, most violations appear to be either zero or two points. If you have a low enough speed (like 71 in a 65), that's no points. And they have a surcharge if you get 6 or more points, starting at $100.
Altogether the fine and point system seems both simpler and gentler than here. In NY a high speed (31+ over) has a fine up to $85, plus an assessment of $450 or more.
This is also useful information for Texas drivers who get NY tickets. When we negotiate deals for you, we know what deals will give you points and what won't.
We finished our Texas Traffic Court directory a while ago. Some of the busiest courts we see from our site are:
Houston Municipal Court
Humble Municipal Court
Pasadena Municipal Court
San Antonio Municipal Court
Looks like on the high end, it's almost $500 for a very high speed in a work zone with workers present. On the low end, a low speed is $158.
As for points, most violations appear to be either zero or two points. If you have a low enough speed (like 71 in a 65), that's no points. And they have a surcharge if you get 6 or more points, starting at $100.
Altogether the fine and point system seems both simpler and gentler than here. In NY a high speed (31+ over) has a fine up to $85, plus an assessment of $450 or more.
This is also useful information for Texas drivers who get NY tickets. When we negotiate deals for you, we know what deals will give you points and what won't.
We finished our Texas Traffic Court directory a while ago. Some of the busiest courts we see from our site are:
Houston Municipal Court
Humble Municipal Court
Pasadena Municipal Court
San Antonio Municipal Court
Out-of-state tickets and Massachussetts drivers
Prospective clients frequently ask how their NY ticket will affect them in their home state. Since it's next door, we get this question a lot from Massachusetts drivers. One of the best places to get the answer to this question is your state's DMV. In Massachusetts it is known as the RMV - Registry of Motor Vehicles.
This post is about Massachusetts, but for a more general discussion, see my Do Points Transfer post.
The RMV says that out-of-state tickets will count against you. It's in Chapter 2 of the RMV Drivers Manual (a pdf file). Here are some quotes from that:
Out-of-State Violations
Certain traffic offenses you have committed in other states will be placed on your driving record and treated by the RMV as if they had occurred in Massachusetts.
... [O]ut-of-state violations count toward possible license suspension and automobile insurance surcharges. ...
[T]hese offenses will be treated as if they occurred in [MA] if they are a “like” offense. ... RMV will look at what conduct the other state's law prohibits ....
RMV [will] apply Massachusetts license suspension rules to any [such] out-of-state violations ....
A lot of states follow this approach. One reason to hire our firm is that we look at your state's rules to see what reductions would have the lowest impact in your home state. Then we use that information in negotiating a deal for you. This is important. One of the most common reductions for simple tickets in NY is actually worse than a low speed for drivers in some states, such as NJ and FL.
For those interested in MA, see my post about Massachusetts Traffic Court.
This post is about Massachusetts, but for a more general discussion, see my Do Points Transfer post.
The RMV says that out-of-state tickets will count against you. It's in Chapter 2 of the RMV Drivers Manual (a pdf file). Here are some quotes from that:
Out-of-State Violations
Certain traffic offenses you have committed in other states will be placed on your driving record and treated by the RMV as if they had occurred in Massachusetts.
... [O]ut-of-state violations count toward possible license suspension and automobile insurance surcharges. ...
[T]hese offenses will be treated as if they occurred in [MA] if they are a “like” offense. ... RMV will look at what conduct the other state's law prohibits ....
RMV [will] apply Massachusetts license suspension rules to any [such] out-of-state violations ....
A lot of states follow this approach. One reason to hire our firm is that we look at your state's rules to see what reductions would have the lowest impact in your home state. Then we use that information in negotiating a deal for you. This is important. One of the most common reductions for simple tickets in NY is actually worse than a low speed for drivers in some states, such as NJ and FL.
For those interested in MA, see my post about Massachusetts Traffic Court.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
NY Tickets and NJ Insurance
We spoke recently with a NJ insurance agent. He had received a ticket in NY which was an 1110a. This was a "road-side writedown" where the cop was giving him a break from a speed.
The agent told us that an 1110a would increase insurance rates by as much $900 per year for three years. He said he wished the cop had written him for a low speed because ...
NJ insurance companies treat a first-time low speed essentially as a free pass. While it does count for points on a NJ record, it does not impact insurance rates.
The agent said that for anything out-of-state 15 mph or above, even though it's only 2 points, the insurance companies do raise rates based on the speed and not just the points. He also verified that the 2-point deal we get for NJ clients in NY does not count for points in NJ and does not affect insurance rates.
The agent told us that an 1110a would increase insurance rates by as much $900 per year for three years. He said he wished the cop had written him for a low speed because ...
NJ insurance companies treat a first-time low speed essentially as a free pass. While it does count for points on a NJ record, it does not impact insurance rates.
The agent said that for anything out-of-state 15 mph or above, even though it's only 2 points, the insurance companies do raise rates based on the speed and not just the points. He also verified that the 2-point deal we get for NJ clients in NY does not count for points in NJ and does not affect insurance rates.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Supreme Court on the DWI Exception to the Constitution
The Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal on a drunk driving case that was dismissed. Virginia's highest court threw out the conviction in Harris v. Commonwealth (a pdf file). It found that the stop was unconstitutional - based only on an anonymous tip.
Chief Justice Roberts (and Justice Scalia) felt the Court should have reviewed the case. Below are some excerpts of Roberts' opinion). His writing is in italics and mine is in plain text. Citations are generally omitted.
[T]he Virginia Supreme Court overturned the conviction. It concluded that because the officer had failed to independently verify that Harris was driving dangerously, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
I am not sure that the Fourth Amendment requires such independent corroboration before the police can act, at least in the special context of anonymous tips reporting drunk driving.
The "special context" is troubling. It fits with criticism I've read in the past of a DUI exception to the Constitution (usually credited to California DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor), as well as similar concerns about a "drug war" exception for drug cases.
In Florida v. J. L. ... we explained that anonymous tips, in the absence of additional corroboration, typically lack the “indicia of reliability” needed to justify a stop under the reasonable suspicion standard. ... But it is not clear that J. L. applies to anonymous tips reporting drunk or erratic driving. J. L. itself suggested that the Fourth Amendment analysis might be different in other situations.
There is no question that drunk driving is a serious and potentially deadly crime, as our cases have repeatedly emphasized. ... The imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other types of cases.
With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, this argument is just plain rubbish. I'd buy the argument if there was a tip about a terrorist with a nuclear weapon in his car, but taking it to the level of drunk drivers is going way too far.
Roberts' concern about the danger of the drunk driver was resolved in this case - the driver was stopped and taken off the road that night. Once they were in Court, the imminent danger was gone.
Perhaps a more moderate step here would be for Congress to legislate civil immunity for police making stops of suspected drunk drivers. Of course, that would prevent innocent people from suing to enforce their own constitutional rights. But it appears Roberts and Scalia don't care about that.
The conflict is clear and the stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers “one free swerve” before they can legally be pulled over by police. It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.
Nice emotional touch. I'm waiting for the day when Roberts and Scalia explain their rules to the families of innocent defendants abused by cops and prosecutors.
Courts sometimes have to balance competing interests. Roberts and Scalia apparently feel that protecting the public from drunk drivers is more important than protecting people from police abuse. But the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It doesn't mention any exceptions, not even for the perceived terrorists - Indians and British loyalists - of that period in our history. Conservatives are supposed to let legislatures do the balancing. So much for Scalia supporting the text of the Constitution.
Drunk driving is a real problem. Eviscerating the Constitution is not the best solution. I've proposed other ideas in the past on my Stop Wasting Money blog. Mass transit is my favorite, but there's more.
To see the opinion, also in pdf: Virginia v. Harris
Chief Justice Roberts (and Justice Scalia) felt the Court should have reviewed the case. Below are some excerpts of Roberts' opinion). His writing is in italics and mine is in plain text. Citations are generally omitted.
[T]he Virginia Supreme Court overturned the conviction. It concluded that because the officer had failed to independently verify that Harris was driving dangerously, the stop violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
I am not sure that the Fourth Amendment requires such independent corroboration before the police can act, at least in the special context of anonymous tips reporting drunk driving.
The "special context" is troubling. It fits with criticism I've read in the past of a DUI exception to the Constitution (usually credited to California DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor), as well as similar concerns about a "drug war" exception for drug cases.
In Florida v. J. L. ... we explained that anonymous tips, in the absence of additional corroboration, typically lack the “indicia of reliability” needed to justify a stop under the reasonable suspicion standard. ... But it is not clear that J. L. applies to anonymous tips reporting drunk or erratic driving. J. L. itself suggested that the Fourth Amendment analysis might be different in other situations.
There is no question that drunk driving is a serious and potentially deadly crime, as our cases have repeatedly emphasized. ... The imminence of the danger posed by drunk drivers exceeds that at issue in other types of cases.
With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, this argument is just plain rubbish. I'd buy the argument if there was a tip about a terrorist with a nuclear weapon in his car, but taking it to the level of drunk drivers is going way too far.
Roberts' concern about the danger of the drunk driver was resolved in this case - the driver was stopped and taken off the road that night. Once they were in Court, the imminent danger was gone.
Perhaps a more moderate step here would be for Congress to legislate civil immunity for police making stops of suspected drunk drivers. Of course, that would prevent innocent people from suing to enforce their own constitutional rights. But it appears Roberts and Scalia don't care about that.
The conflict is clear and the stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers “one free swerve” before they can legally be pulled over by police. It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.
Nice emotional touch. I'm waiting for the day when Roberts and Scalia explain their rules to the families of innocent defendants abused by cops and prosecutors.
Courts sometimes have to balance competing interests. Roberts and Scalia apparently feel that protecting the public from drunk drivers is more important than protecting people from police abuse. But the language of the Fourth Amendment is clear. It doesn't mention any exceptions, not even for the perceived terrorists - Indians and British loyalists - of that period in our history. Conservatives are supposed to let legislatures do the balancing. So much for Scalia supporting the text of the Constitution.
Drunk driving is a real problem. Eviscerating the Constitution is not the best solution. I've proposed other ideas in the past on my Stop Wasting Money blog. Mass transit is my favorite, but there's more.
To see the opinion, also in pdf: Virginia v. Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
