Speeding Cameras

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you read any of my posts in other threads?

[ QUOTE ]
Will you all of a sudden drive like a dangerous and reckless person if these camera's are removed and police stop doing speed traps?

[/ QUOTE ]
What if we removed all speed limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

How has the Autobahn done in Germany all these decades (you've heard of the Autobahn, I presume)? Is it still major highway with no speed limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
But that is on a specific highway and that highway is patrolled. I believe if you are in the passing lane, you better be passing someone or you will get a ticket. My point was more about removing enforcement of the rules for a particular road. The Germans are also more serious about driving in that you don't see people yakking on the cellphone or trying to eat something while driving.

For instance, I wouldn't have a problem with a private road that had no speed limit. I might not drive on it, but I wouldn't have a problem with its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you something just to be provocative:

Do you think that some people who work for 'the government' would have a problem with such a road and would try to intervene in one way or another? And if so, why is it any of their business?

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
If its a law, I have no problem with them enforcing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad laws breed corruption by making almost everyone a criminal and encouraging SELECTIVE enforcement. STRICT enforcement is the best way to get a bad law changed.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, not all participants in "the public" have consented to this type of procedure (if your going to invoke love it or leave it don't bother, I don't want to hijack the thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the fault of specific people within "the public." It's their duty to vote or otherwise bring about policy change if they don't agree with how their tax dollars are being used.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does this "duty" come from? It doesn't magically make it right to take other people's money if you give them an incredibly small voice in saying what the policy is.

Just because X% (where X=50% or more) of those forced into handing over there money get their way doesn't make it OK.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Excellent idea! When they crash, it'll be a gentle crash.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can also make it illegal to be out in public without big fluffy mittens on our hands (no more assault and battery injuries) I should rule the world i'm so smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Troll,

I nowhere ever suggested such a thing. I simply said it would save lives. I never said it would be worth the costs to do so. If you were to drop the speed limit on all roads to 25 mph (and enforce it), there would be virtually no traffic fatalities. This disproves the notion that speed does not kill.

Encforcing minimum speed limits or hanging out in the left lane MAY be just as effective as enforcing a 70mph speed limit (as two different possibilities). I am not denying this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was mearly taking your assertions and expanding them to further reduce injuries and deaths. If your idea is 'good' why isn't my idea even better?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt your assertions would reduce deaths. I never made a contrary claim. Do you have a point? I was merely attacking the claim that "speed does not kill", which is clearly false. Speed is a very important factor in determining likelyhood of a fatal accident. Difference in speed is ALSO one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you really think that the poster you were responding to is stupid enough to think that in a fantasy world where all cars travel at 1 mph there would not be less accident fatalities than in one where all cars travel at 60mph?

Speed kills is government propaganda. Planes travel at 600mph, are they vehicles of death?

[/ QUOTE ]


A lot of people on 2+2 are pretty stupid.
They are when they crash.

When I drive at 90mph, it is more dangerous than if I drive at 70mph. If there are people going 10mph when I'm going 90mph, its more dangerous than if everyone else is going 70mph. If its raining, its more dangerous than if its not. There are lots of factors.

Like many things in life, we cannot remove all risk without being completely unreasonable. So we must figure out the best ways to figure out the level of risk that is optimal. But this is difficult since some people don't mind risks for increased comfort, and others do. How do we balance this? One option is to create lots of different types of roads- some with no speed limits, some with very slow speed limits. But roads are much harder comodities to do this to than things like hot dogs. It isn't logical to expect there are a lot of roads between two endpoints. Which is why the gov't is in the road business to begin with (and not in the hot dog business). The longer the stretch, the more options there could be. It is more possible these types of roads could be privately owned, since the possibilities of alternatives would exist.

Many ACists have proposed that local "homeowners assocations" or similar type groups would benefit by owning the roads around their areas. Businesses want roads leading to their businesses. This would lead to a very similarly locally "quasi-govt" controlled system. Long distance travel could be more likely to be owned by private companies or indviduals, and the market would probably find an equalibrium between peoples desires for low risk travel with their desire for fast travel.

Currently, the government does use roads for tax revenues rather than safety. I agree that speed limits could be raised to be higher without as much risk (especially if minimum speed limits, and failure to pass in the left lane) laws were enforced rigorously. Since it is government owned, and the ability to provide a "free product" to kill any competitors (is it illegal to make a private tollway?), we end up with a system that is what it is today.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you read any of my posts in other threads?

[ QUOTE ]
Will you all of a sudden drive like a dangerous and reckless person if these camera's are removed and police stop doing speed traps?

[/ QUOTE ]
What if we removed all speed limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

How has the Autobahn done in Germany all these decades (you've heard of the Autobahn, I presume)? Is it still major highway with no speed limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
But that is on a specific highway and that highway is patrolled. I believe if you are in the passing lane, you better be passing someone or you will get a ticket. My point was more about removing enforcement of the rules for a particular road. The Germans are also more serious about driving in that you don't see people yakking on the cellphone or trying to eat something while driving.

For instance, I wouldn't have a problem with a private road that had no speed limit. I might not drive on it, but I wouldn't have a problem with its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you something just to be provocative:

Do you think that some people who work for 'the government' would have a problem with such a road and would try to intervene in one way or another? And if so, why is it any of their business?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the world I envision, there wouldn't be a government.

[yukoncpa]

Hi,

I jumped into this late, so pardon me if this has been addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what difference it makes if they use a camera or radar or any other electronic aid in determining whether a person is speeding.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not in a jurisdiction where they have speeding cameras, but, since you are not immediately notified of your infraction, I can think of a few of problems. 1) What happens if they send the ticket to the wrong address? 2) by the time you receive your ticket in the mail, you may not have had a chance to remember or record circumstances that may have forced you in this instance to run a red light. 3) what happens when someone else was using your car at the time? Is it a simple matter to reverse the ticket or do you have to go through a time consuming process?

[andyfox]

"Would you be offended if the government forced auto manufactures to put breathalizers in every car?"

15,000 people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Maybe it's not a bad idea. "Only" 3,000 were killed on 9/11.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Like many things in life, we cannot remove all risk without being completely unreasonable. So we must figure out the best ways to figure out the level of risk that is optimal. But this is difficult since some people don't mind risks for increased comfort, and others do. How do we balance this?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the issue is around perceived risk and people's emotions about this. Govt preys on people's fears to get them to accept the intrusion and control. I think we as a society would be just fine if police completely stopped 'enforcing' speed limits. Just stopped. Sure there is the very rare situation where someone is barrelling down the highway and changing lanes doing 100mph putting others at risk but this is very very rare. Very rare.

There are traffic accidents and people die. That is true now and will be true forever. Using this mater of fact, unavoidable reality to scare us and control us is abusive IMO. We can not stop the occasional dangerous behavior of others. It has continued and will continue and it is foolish to think that the current system is 'helping' us. Putting out propaganda like speed kills and showing traffic fatalities on the news is propaganda to justify the taxing and controlling of us, preying on our fears and desire to 'feel safe'. Life is risk. I don't want to be 'helped' by being turned into a slave.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
"Would you be offended if the government forced auto manufactures to put breathalizers in every car?"

15,000 people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Maybe it's not a bad idea. "Only" 3,000 were killed on 9/11.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the govt should build plane proof housing for everyone?

[andyfox]

That I might be "comfortable" driving 100 mph doesn't mean I'm safe while doing it.

My son (who is LAPD) tells me that he has never seen or even heard of an accident caused by someone going too slow.