Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:00 am) Many limited access rural highways have a 65 mph speed limit. Yet, here in Pennsylvania, for example, people regularly drive 80-85 mph. If you think that driving 80+ mph constitutes "excessive speeding," you really do need to get out more. larsb: You know, GRB, everything we do on this board is a "waste of time" but we still do it. Have you declared a war on time wasting? Combatting the ideas of the poorly informed is never a waste of time. larsb: And unless I have shifted to another dimension, speeding is still an epidemic in this country and which is being now addressed by Photo Radar. The better approach is to address it with realistic (read, higher) speed limits.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 07, 2009 10:03 am) Be careful there. I'm not in that grouping of people. and combating is spelled with one T. grbeck says, "The better approach is to address it with realistic speed limits." To correctly state the issue, add to that statement: "and better enforcement."
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:05 am) Sorry, but wailing about people driving 80 mph on a limited access highway, and attempting to drag out the old, discredited "speed kills" baloney for limited access highways does not give one confidence in your knowledge of the subject matter at hand. larsb: and combating is spelled with one T. The American Heritage College Dictionary (Third Edition) lists it as "combatting." Under journalistic spelling conventions, it can be spelled either way. larsb: To correctly state the issue, add to that statement: "and better enforcement." If speed limits are set at realistic levels, the majority of drivers will obey them. Police can worry about more important things - rape, murder and armed robbery come to mind - and there is no need for the employment of intrusive technology that is really designed to raise revenue.
|
|
|
grbeck says, "If speed limits are set at realistic levels, the majority of drivers will obey them." The "majority" of drivers obey them now. Mostly. Some areas are far worse. The problem remains, no matter how you try to rationalize around it, that far too many people get away with driving far too fast for safety. If Photo Radar can help with that, we should all be begging for it. grbeck says, "intrusive technology" You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means when it comes to photo radar. It's no more intrusive than getting stopped and risking OTHER citations. You think them folks who get caught for speeding then end up arrested for other stuff think "a couple of snapshots" are more intrusive than a full-body and full-vehicle search? Please.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 07, 2009 10:11 am) You've been around here long enough to understand that you can attack the IDEA but should avoid attacking the PERSON behind the idea. Basic etiquette.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:24 am) If you are talking about urban areas, or even suburban streets, yes, the majority of people do obey posted speed limits. On limited access highways, they do not. If you wish, I can take you on a long drive on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-81, with the cruise set at 65 mph, to let you see firsthand how many people are driving faster than the posted 65 mph speed limit. larsb: The problem remains, no matter how you try to rationalize around it, that far too many people get away with driving far too fast for safety. Except, of course, that fatalities per 100 million miles driven have reached record lows in this country, and the raw numbers of fatalities dropped dramatically in early 2008, even though there is no proof that people were slowing down. So, there is no proof whatsoever that are roads are the scene of Automotive Armageddon because people are driving faster than 75 mph. Looks to me like our roads are safer than ever. larsb: You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means when it comes to photo radar. It's no more intrusive than getting stopped and risking OTHER citations. If you think having your actions monitored by an impersonal traffic camera that issues a ticket without taking other, intangible factors into account is the same as being pulled over by a police officer for a routine traffic stop, you have no clue as to what you are talking about. larsb: You think them folks who get caught for speeding then end up arrested for other stuff think "a couple of snapshots" are more intrusive than a full-body and full-vehicle search? Please. You earlier complained about the introduction of red herrings on this thread. You just introduced a big one yourself, as routine stops for traffic violations do not automatically result in full-body and full-vehicle searches. Police officers must have a reason to conduct a full-body and full-vehicle search, and driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone, by itself, does not constitute a sufficient reason. We are comparing photo radar to routine traffic stops, not photo radar to arrests for more serious offenses uncovered when the police officer makes the initial traffic stop. (If you talk to law enforcement officials, you will discover that the initial traffic stop in those cases was often a pretext because the officer knew that something more serious was occurring). |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:41 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 07, 2009 10:48 am) You did in fact attack him by the above statement which is at least, "Rude" Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength, Eric Hoffer
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Jan 07, 2009 11:49 am) Sorry, but there is a considerable difference between questioning someone's knowledge of the subject matter at hand, and being rude. If you put an idea out there, expect to have it criticized, and if you make claims that can't be supported, expect to have them rebutted. And if it looks as though you don't have a firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, expect to be called on it. We're not in pre-school where everyone's ideas are "great," or where the teacher is going to drag out the Barney tapes and tell us all that we are special just because we have an idea. euphonium: Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength, Eric Hoffer Claims of rudeness are a distraction designed to cover for a lack of knowledge by those raising the charge, grbeck.  Or, in this particular discussion, a very weak case for the widespread use of photo radar. |
|
|
grbeck says, "Or, in this particular discussion, a very weak case for the widespread use of photo radar. " So weak that everyone here is agreeing with you. Photo radar saves time and money and MAKES MONEY and targets the people who are violating the law in the worst fashion. 'Nuff Said. P.S. I've seen your long-typed rebuttals all over Edmunds, and I have yet to see you make an humble statement or come to realize you might not be right in every case. Just because you see your point in perfect clarity (as I do this one) does not mean that you are correct in every aspect of your assessment. No problem for me, but something you might want to think about.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
