Speed Cameras. Coming soon to your town? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-06-2009, 06:40 PM   #136
arw
Blue Crack Addict
 
arw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: walking around 10,000 lakes
Posts: 27,320
Local Time: 04:09 AM
I just read the first page or two of this but I'll comment since AZ was mentioned. I live in Phoenix and there's a few cameras on my daily path. There are signs on the side of the road stating that in 1/4 of a mile there's a photo enforced traffic zone coming up. People immediately begin to slow down, drive the speed limit through the zone area, and then speed up again. I'm always amazed at the people that speed up again right away because at certain times of the day there's generally a speed trap waiting a few miles away. I've seen the camera go off a lot, which amazes me because just about everyone slows down. I can't figure out why the speeders think they can get away with passing everyone else and not get caught. The flash of the camera is fairly bright too. You can see it go off from either side of the road. It's pretty frightening when it goes off while you are driving in the zone. Even though I know it's not for me it still makes my heart jump a little. I'm a huge highway speeder, or used to be I guess, and I can say that it's definitely helped me to slow down.
__________________

__________________
arw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 06:57 PM   #137
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
They could just make vehicles that don't go over 55.
But in some states the speed limit is 75 and even 80.

Maybe they could fit cars with GPS units that read the speed wherever you are and don't let the car go faster than what the speed limit is. Listen to me! Now you've got ME talking like Big Brother!
__________________

__________________
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 08:03 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
They could stop speeding tomorrow. All they have to do is set a reasonable speed limit on the roads, and have a zero tolerance policy with huge fines and license suspensions. They'll never do it though. There's no money in that sort of shit.
I think all this talk of $ is really over simplistic.

It is also question of enforcement (is this the best allocation of resources?) and prosecution (should we burden the court system).

So the idea that this isn't done because there isn't money in that sort of shit really doesn't take into account the primary reasons for why it actually a) isn't done and b) shouldn't be done.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 08:56 PM   #139
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
go back to bed america, your government is in control. here, here is american gladiators, watch this, shut up.
You are free ... to do as we tell you. You are free ... to do as we tell you.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 10:56 PM   #140
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I think all this talk of $ is really over simplistic.

It is also question of enforcement (is this the best allocation of resources?) and prosecution (should we burden the court system).

So the idea that this isn't done because there isn't money in that sort of shit really doesn't take into account the primary reasons for why it actually a) isn't done and b) shouldn't be done.
In Maryland, they did a study of different types of speed deterrents, including cameras. These included things like speed bumps, traffic circles, islands, and other sorts of things. The cameras were the least effective. But they were the only ones that administered some sort of punitive fine. They were also the only ones with a strong lobbying effort behind them. So it's easy to assume that money was the deciding factor.

Personally, I think it's overly simplistic to just assume that the cameras will make the roads safer even though they only monitor a 5' section of road, only watch traffic in one direction (you need a second cam for the other direction), and in Maryland's case are being deployed on roads with no significant accident history.

I also think it would be a bit hypocritical of me, after castigating things like Bush's wiretapping and the assaults on our civil liberties by the "Patriot Act", to conveniently be fine with this particular assault because it was a democrat (for whom I voted) who pushed it through.

Several years ago we had a speed bump craze. They were slapping them on all the county's roads, everywhere. People were annoyed, but the officials promised that this would put an end to accidents, and slow everyone down, forever. They slowed some people down alright. Ambulances and fire trucks in particular. It never occurred to anyone that a 5-year-old kid with a spinal injury might not do so well when his ambulance was launched over a 6" tall speed bump that the driver didn't see because it was dark and raining.

Needless to say, the bumps weren't the end all, be all solution they were billed as. But we still blew millions of taxpayer dollars installing them, then millions more ripping half of them out. I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to actually put the brakes on (pun intended) before blowing another bazillion of our dollars on this latest "savior".
__________________
cydewaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 11:00 PM   #141
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post

Personally, I think it's overly simplistic to just assume that the cameras will make the roads safer even though they only monitor a 5' section of road, only watch traffic in one direction (you need a second cam for the other direction), and in Maryland's case are being deployed on roads with no significant accident history.
I don't think that they do, either.

But I disagree that we could stop speeding tomorrow if we wanted to, because that's completely unrealistic for the reasons that I mentioned.

I don't oppose the cameras on grounds of privacy law (there are far more intrusive things that we are subject to on a daily basis); I object to their placement when the studies show them to be ineffective.

Ultimately though, it's an issue of almost no importance to me politically, so it's just not one that is on my radar.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 07:07 AM   #142
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
speeding does not necessarily equal reckless

and sorry, i dont trust anything an insurance company says
Do you even know what the NRMA is? I'm guessing not. But they're an insurance company! They must be evil! Like the government! Bastards. All of them! And you're questioning the facts on their studies? Based on what? Oh look, nevermind. I don't really care. Your arguments are flawed and ignorant. Speed on, buddy. Just don't take any innocent person with you when you wrap yourself around a tree, eh?
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 09:34 AM   #143
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 05:09 AM
wow, somebody cant take a joke
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 09:52 AM   #144
Refugee
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: in a French-ass restaurant
Posts: 1,482
Local Time: 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
wow, somebody cant take a joke
Less a joke, more of an avoidance of a fair and accurate source. Nice dodge.
__________________
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 09:58 AM   #145
Refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,593
Local Time: 05:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
Less a joke, more of an avoidance of a fair and accurate source. Nice dodge.
anytime i have a next to a comment i made, it means i was most likely joking or kidding around.

just so you know.

i dont have to "dodge" anything on a message board.
__________________
bigjohn2441 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 11:19 AM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn2441 View Post
i dont have to "dodge" anything on a message board.
Too bad I didn't manage to "dodge" the speeding car that hit me last year. He was going 70 kph where he was allowed 50. He also thought he could decide for himself what was a safe speed on that road. I'm glad I got off as well as I did.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 11:24 AM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
In Maryland, they did a study of different types of speed deterrents, including cameras. These included things like speed bumps, traffic circles, islands, and other sorts of things. The cameras were the least effective. But they were the only ones that administered some sort of punitive fine. They were also the only ones with a strong lobbying effort behind them. So it's easy to assume that money was the deciding factor.
Well, how should any of the other deterrents work on a highway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
I also think it would be a bit hypocritical of me, after castigating things like Bush's wiretapping and the assaults on our civil liberties by the "Patriot Act", to conveniently be fine with this particular assault because it was a democrat (for whom I voted) who pushed it through.
Given, the term hypocritical is not nearly as often used here than in the States, but I also don't see it hypocritical to judge things individually at all. Only because I'm a strong opponent of the things our Minister of the Interior wanted to push through over the last several years doesn't mean that now everything that's being used to enforce the law must be judged in the same way.
There's a big difference between a simple speed camera and the other things you are naming here. Should they start to advance these cameras then I would revalue the need for that.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com