Speeding Cameras

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't wanna wake up in 10 years only receive a email containing a bill for traveling avg 7.45 mph over the speed limit for 126.25 miles at the current rate of $xx/mph/mile.

It feels a lot more like a cash register than a safety device.

I don't wanna be watched/monitored by big brother.

If they want to actively police, and catch me speeding -- fine.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
If the government did everything it could to save 15,000 lives a year every time an idea came up for a way to do it (ban transfats, put breathalyzers in cars, ration cigarettes to 2 packs a week, ration alcohol to 7 drinks per week, police write tickets if you don't use snow tires in the North, and every other little thing that might save 15,000 lives per year): we might save 1.5 million lives per year, or even more, with all those measures; but it wouldn't be worth it.

It's worth taking a bit more risk in order to be free from being constantly: watched over, guarded over, hounded, hassled, inconvenienced, busybodied, henpecked, nitpicked, bothered and bewildered by what are growing to be soon a billion regulations and rules by which we must all live our lives - or else. Aren't you starting to get sick of it, too?

Frankly, I'm getting to where I don't give a damn if 15,000 more people die or not. Just leave me alone to live in peace; and I'm sure many other Americans feel exactly the same way if they stop and think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant!

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, the same governments who created the problem in the first place. Well, sometimes they clean up their mess. That time, they only managed to kill 62 million. Good work, boys!

[andyfox]

I don't see the difference between "actively" policing and using available technology. At a retail store, there are surveillance cameras and an alarm that goes off if I attempt to walk out with something I didn't pay for.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

Trip report?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

If the government did everything it could to save 15,000 lives a year every time an idea came up for a way to do it (ban transfats, put breathalyzers in cars, ration cigarettes to 2 packs a week, ration alcohol to 7 drinks per week, police write tickets if you don't use snow tires in the North, and every other little thing that might save 15,000 lives per year): we might save 1.5 million lives per year, or even more, with all those measures; but it wouldn't be worth it.

It's worth taking a bit more risk in order to be free from being constantly: watched over, guarded over, hounded, hassled, inconvenienced, busybodied, henpecked, nitpicked, bothered and bewildered by what are growing to be soon a billion regulations and rules by which we must all live our lives - or else. Aren't you starting to get sick of it, too?

Frankly, I'm getting to where I don't give a damn if 15,000 more people die or not. Just leave me alone to live in peace; and I'm sure many other Americans feel exactly the same way if they stop and think about it.

[/ 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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't rapidly decelerate without going fast to begin with. Nobody is actually suggesting that going fast is inherently going to harm anyone, but the fact is the faster you go the more potential deceleration forces you're facing.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

I oppose keeping all citizens in individual padded cells. Therefore it's my fault when one citizen kills another, because it couldn't have happened if they were both in their individual padded cells.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the difference between "actively" policing and using available technology. At a retail store, there are surveillance cameras and an alarm that goes off if I attempt to walk out with something I didn't pay for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it as a huge difference.

I consent to being monitored when I walk in the store.