Speeding Cameras

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want any illusions. I live in LA, I know how unsafe life can be.

That said, are all of the government's homeland security measures a waste of time? I want metal detectors for the planes I board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes IMO they are. An expensive (financially and intrusively) waste. I have not travelled on a plane since 911 and will not subject myself to that level of intrusion (waits, inspections, etc).

911 is an excuse to control us further... hyping on people's fear. Well financed terrorists are not walking across the mexican dessert to come here lol. Please.

We can never be safe. No you, not me. Never. Not in the sence of preventing a wild maniac from doing some killing. It's an excuse to grow govt.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not "more" laws. It's the same one. A speed limit.

Should there be no speed limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we would be better off if the signs stayed and the enforcement completely stopped (albeit with the rare exception of a cop noticing someone flying down the freeway doing 100 changing lanes, etc or some teenagers racing dangerously) Like 99.99% less speeding tickets issued. Cops use that time to respond to rapes, murders, armed robberies, etc.

[andyfox]

Anyone who has read the politics forum knows that I believe the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, that it had made up its mind to do so for other reasons. I believe that most government officials are liars and nothing they say should be believed.

That said, I still want metal detectors.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it should be pretty clear that both speed and differences in speed increase the risk of severe accidents. I don't see why people are arguing about it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not "more" laws. It's the same one. A speed limit.

Should there be no speed limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

Speed limits should be strictly enforced in residential areas while on freeways it should be governed by the flow of traffic. Anyone disrupting the flow should be ticketed for their infraction whether going too slow or too fast for traffic or in the wrong lane.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we would be better off if the signs stayed and the enforcement completely stopped

[/ QUOTE ]
So effectively, no speed limits.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has read the politics forum knows that I believe the Bush administration has used 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq, that it had made up its mind to do so for other reasons. I believe that most government officials are liars and nothing they say should be believed.

That said, I still want metal detectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

medal detectors were all in place pre 911 were they not? I took some illegal exotic animals through medal detectors pre 911 (in my coat pocket) and they were making noises and trying to climb out of my pocket while going through one so I know. I don't think i could ever get away with that now. I certainly would not try (p.s. the animals were not a danger to anyone).

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speed doesn't kill

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a driver driving at 100 miles an hour is no more likely to lose control than one driving at 10 mile an hour. Not only that, but if they both DO lose control, they'll cause the same amount of damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just took a drivers safety course (thanks speeding tickets), and found out that speed is the #1 factor in determining the likelyhood of a fatality in an accident. This is common sense. If you crash going 35, its very rare someone will be killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help being a complete nit here, but speed doesn't kill, it's the deceleration in the crash that causes the damage that ends up killing you. If speed killed, getting on a plane that travels many times the speed of a car would be suicide. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] Ok, that's all the nitting I will do I promise.

[MidGe]

[ 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.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we would be better off if the signs stayed and the enforcement completely stopped

[/ QUOTE ]
So effectively, no speed limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

we would be responsible to behave safely on the roads, as the way we should. As the way we do (with a minority of exceptions) now. We would still have insurance and rates can go up for ppl who cause accidents and the like. I do not accept the notion that people will turn into uncontrollable beasts if we don't have cops monitoring us on the highways.