Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Speeding is foolish. Incredibly stupid, reckless behaviour.
Speeding is foolish. Incredibly stupid, reckless behaviour.
to be fair though, you aren't a driver.
Some of those figures do get exaggerated though.
That said, I think are rules are probably better from yours. I think here it should be 5ks over, warning or something, because I copped a point for being 4 ks over, but those seem pretty damn lenient.
If only the world was the hyper-simplified, black and white, small picture, one-sided coin that you see it as, I guess that would be the case.
It reminds me of when the right-wingers in my country say things like, "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you care that the government taps your phones?" If you have to ask the question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer.
As far as cameras in Au working just fine, they don't. Sorry!
RIGHT! the law is the law, right or wrong. we should never question the system.
But john, you have to realize that the government is always right, and if they decide that the speed limit on all roads should be 15mph, they have the right to do that and we shouldn't ever complain!
This is much too simple of a statement, to be frank. Me doing 50 on a highway that is pointlessly 35 is endangering no one. In fact, doing the speed limit would often be more dangerous.
They 'work fine' at revenue raising for the government.
Incidentally, why do you think the police have better expertise than the private citizen on adjudjing what driving too fast means?
I think your counter is too simple. In what way would those speeds be dangerous?
I'll try and look for those results the NRMA have conducted over the years here on breaking distances and speed effects on as little as 5km/h. I'm also struggling a little with your mile examples. I'm not at all familiar with just how fast a 15 mile difference in speed would be. I need a converter, also, lol.
Not sure what your highways are like physically, but 80km is a reasonable speed, I do agree. Our highways vary between 60-80, depending on the residential build up and shops or schools, etc. If there is any potential hazard, things do change. Your extra 5, 10, 15 km/h do greatly affect your stopping distance, your ability to react in time safely, and so on. We're all aware of how technical these things can get.
And I do agree that particularly slow drivers can pose their own hazard. On freeways here the limit is generally 110km/hr but L platers can only do 80, so they plod along in the slow lane pissing people off, causing them to recklessly merge in and out. Great variances in speeds are a problem, definitely.
Sorry, my mind-reading isn't what it used to be. But even still, there's a big difference between concept and execution. Lots of things look good conceptually that don't cut it in the real world.I believe Axver was referring to the concept of cameras being effective, actually
That's a really accurate response, given that you seemed to have misunderstood what Axver was saying.
Nope. With an IQ of 72, that's the best I can do, sorry!Oh, cydewaze, this isn't sarcasm! It's just annoying. You can do better than this, no?
I'll tell you what cooks my goose.And that's the point. A limit around 110 km/h would be much more reasonable for our highways, not 88 km/h.
We're just way too low with our speed limits, which is why I don't want these cameras. I'd be ticketed for being reasonable.
But in some states the speed limit is 75 and even 80.They could just make vehicles that don't go over 55.
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.
go back to bed america, your government is in control. here, here is american gladiators, watch this, shut up.
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.
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.
speeding does not necessarily equal reckless
and sorry, i dont trust anything an insurance company says
wow, somebody cant take a joke
Less a joke, more of an avoidance of a fair and accurate source. Nice dodge.
i dont have to "dodge" anything on a message board.
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.
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.