Speeding Cameras

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I lived in LA for a while and an idiot going 35 in the left hand lane of the 405 while everyone is going 70 is going to cause other accidents because of people trying to get around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, it is the idiot overtaking unsafely who is causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the moron who is going too slow in the left hand lane--is he without blame or fault here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely blameless. The only moran is the one overtaking unsafely!

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude--but it is people that think like you that cause many of these mini "road rage" events which actually cause those people to attempt to pass unsafely. Traffic on the road should move with a certain flow. People who impede this flow by driving too fast or too slow in their respective lanes are the people who are most likely to be involved or cause accidents. This has nothing to do with speed limits, but rather the speed that traffic has decided to go, whether higher or lower than the posted limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude, but attribute road rage to another with a safe and legal behavior is pushing the responsibility to the wrong person. Road rage seem to stem more from a psychological deficiency in the one that exhibits it.

As the traffic deciding I would rather expect the people in the traffic abide by the law governing driving on public road. Anything that will reduce the number of people infringing these, by issuing fines, by random testing, by cameras, will make driving safer for all. Go cameras! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything that will reduce the number of people infringing these, by issuing fines, by random testing, by cameras, will make driving safer for all. Go cameras! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Go checkpoints and travel papers!

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just leave me alone to live in peace"

But what if I'm one of the 15,000 who get killed by drunk drivers? By you, because you want to be left in peace?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't drink, let alone drink and drive, so that wouldn't be possible.

Also, I won't care much if I get killed by a drunk driver, either; the very low risk of that is well worth not having to blow into a stupid breathalyzer device every time before starting the car.

If you're actually so worried about getting killed by a drunk driver that you think breathalyzers should be required in every car, your best bet might be to give up driving altogether and use alternate transportation instead.

Does a 15,000/300,000,000 risk each year when driving really scare you that much that you'd want to have to activate and use a breathalyzer device every time you get in your car? Let's see, that's the same as 15/300,000 which is 1/20,000. How many more years do you expect to be driving, anyway? If you expect to drive 40 more years you could cut out 40/20,000 chance of getting killed by a drunk driver. All it would cost is your time to do it, and a modest investment in the built-in devices themselves.

Now let's figure up how many times a year you'd be forced to use the infernal device (let's say 4 times per day) and determine if the hassle is really worth it. So you (and everybody else) would be using that device over 1400 times per year to alleviate a 1/20,000 chance of dying. You'd be spending probably 4 minutes a day = 1400+ minutes a year = 25+ hours a year blowing into a breathalyzer and listening to it talk to you in an artificial voice. All to miss out on a 1/20,000 shot that will only count for the x number more years you will be driving anyway. Hmm.

Now let's think up 10 more hassle-inflicting safety measures we can impose that can cost us each 4 more minutes every day but that each will statistically avert another 1/20,000 chance for us of dying each year. What's 40 minutes a day if it saves us 1/2000 chance of dying each year? How many more years are we expecting to live, anyway? How about 400 minutes a day to save us 1/200 chance of dying each year? With 800 minutes a day invested in the proper safety procedures, we could cut out a 1/100 chance of dying each year!

I'm not trying to sound rude or be silly, but it just seems absurd to me to trade that much time of living for a tiny reduction in the chance of dying. And that's not even counting the aggravation factor which could conceivably take additional years off our lives too [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

If you really want to live that safely, I won't be one to try to stop you. I just don't think it's wise and I don't think it would be fair to force everyone else to do it too - even if it saves you a 1/20,000 chance of dying each year. If we were going to live 20,000 years though, you might have a point with which I could almost agree. But then again I don't know if I could put up with 20,000 years of that kind of aggravation, 20,000 years of blowing into breathalyzers and listening to the artificial voice.

Hopefully my point and this post makes some sense. By the way, thanks for responding to my posts.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be fairly intuitive.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be fairly intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dumb. Spell it out, so I don't address issues you aren't arguing.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


1. A car ahead of you is going somewhat too slow. People are starting to tailgate you. You pull out to pass and accelerate in a short burst to get by the vehicle and back out of the passing lane safely. You sped during that short burst but it was for a legitimate purpose. A camera would have caught you just "speeding", though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try using that one in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you suggesting; that it's not a legitimate reason to use a brief burst of speed, or that the court would admit it as an OK reason, or that the court would deny it?

Tailgating is hazardous. Being tailgated is hazardous, too.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be fairly intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dumb. Spell it out, so I don't address issues you aren't arguing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very wise on your part. At least you recognize that you're digging yourself a hole.

The point is that a particular item's "previously lawful" status is irrelevant in a moral evaluation.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I lived in LA for a while and an idiot going 35 in the left hand lane of the 405 while everyone is going 70 is going to cause other accidents because of people trying to get around him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, it is the idiot overtaking unsafely who is causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the moron who is going too slow in the left hand lane--is he without blame or fault here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely blameless. The only moran is the one overtaking unsafely!

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude--but it is people that think like you that cause many of these mini "road rage" events which actually cause those people to attempt to pass unsafely. Traffic on the road should move with a certain flow. People who impede this flow by driving too fast or too slow in their respective lanes are the people who are most likely to be involved or cause accidents. This has nothing to do with speed limits, but rather the speed that traffic has decided to go, whether higher or lower than the posted limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.