Speeding Cameras

[andyfox]

If 15,000 people were being killed every year by planes being aimed into buildings, might not the government be reasonably expected to do something about it?

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are never going to report it as "going too slow"---they will say something else such as a driver swerving around a slow driver and getting into an accident that way. 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.

While the person didn't actually "cause" the accident, he bears a good portion of the responsibility even though he will never be written up for it.

[andyfox]

I assume the argument is that once people get used to the fact that there are cameras all over the place, they will not speed as often and thus the roads are safer. My son, who is a cop, tells me that the incidences of people running red lights here in L.A., where there are a lot of cameras installed on the corners, is down markedly since they were installed. [I have not seen the stats, so I'm taking him at his word about this.]

I don't see what right you believe is being taken away by the use of cameras. I can see an argument to be made about whether the practice does indeed increase safety or whether it doesn't.

Again, what about the use of radar to determine rate of speed? Are you against that as well? How about two cops, one at point X noting the time you are there, another at point Y noting the time you are there, and then using math to determine if you must have been speeding?

For the sake of the discusssion, let's assume all of these things would indeed make the roads safer.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are never going to report it as "going too slow"---they will say something else such as a driver swerving around a slow driver and getting into an accident that way. 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.

While the person didn't actually "cause" the accident, he bears a good portion of the responsibility even though he will never be written up for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the lapd son would have liked the way my grandmother drove. When getting on the highway she would STOP at the end of the onramp and look over her left shoulder to see if there were any cars coming (as if there are EVER no cars in view on a 3 lane highway lol). She would sit there and people would pile up behind here beeping and she would wait until there was a good window of no cars. Of course then it took her 5 minutes to get up to doing 55mph so even cars a couple miles out of her view on the highway behind her wound up on her rearend before she got up to speed.

p.s. police are brainwashed.

tell your son about this site

www.leap.cc

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

peace

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
If 15,000 people were being killed every year by planes being aimed into buildings, might not the government be reasonably expected to do something about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

govt makes matters worse. when did they ever solve anything?

[andyfox]

The accident is not caused by someone going 35 in the left lane of the 405. It is caused by someone going 70 and people wanting to go faster.

There is a law against impeding the flow of traffic. I've driven on the 405 virtually every day since 1969 and I've never seen anyone going 35 in the left lane. Or 45. Or 55 (even when the speed limit was 55). And very few going 65.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
The accident is not caused by someone going 35 in the left lane of the 405. It is caused by someone going 70 and people wanting to go faster.

There is a law against impeding the flow of traffic. I've driven on the 405 virtually every day since 1969 and I've never seen anyone going 35 in the left lane. Or 45. Or 55 (even when the speed limit was 55). And very few going 65.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there is a law, how many times does it actually get enforced. And if it does get enforced and there is an accident involved, could you not say that it was caused by a driver going too slow?

Anyhow, I was referring to mainly when it rains where half of the population is scared and the other half drives with reckless abandon During rush hour nobody's moving. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
govt makes matters worse. when did they ever solve anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

The solution to the Nazi problem in Europe was mostly orchestrated by the Allied governments.

[andyfox]

Do you deny that a person driving 100 mph is A) more likely to lose control of his car than one driving 10 mph; and 2) that if both lose control, the one driving 100 mph is more likely to cause more damage to himself and others?

Nobody is talking about making it illegal to do anything but walk. We're talking about reasonable safety standards involving cars.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think the typical cop would have to say 20 years from now, if starting today driving 'too slow' was an offense with a significant fine and one in which handing out said fine was standard protocol for police, sometimes pushed by administration? Also, going 'too fast' would not be an offense any longer starting today.

Do you think the police would begin to shift their view, (as i do since this pays their salaries).