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: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 9:42 am) No, more like using an extreme example to make a point. You advocated for GPS monitors I just took it to the next logical level of government intrusion into personal behavior. I normally don't speed at all. Having a sporty red car in the speed trap heaven of upstate NY makes it difficult. I also don't like wasting gas so I'm usually on cruise control at or below the limit. I also think that while speed itself doesn't kill, it makes the problems which arise from human error worse and thus begrudgingly agree that we need some form of speed enforcement. Having said that, I disagree that photo radar, GPS trackers or other big brother enforcement are the way to go. They seem to be too obtrusive and revenue motivated for my liking. They also are a regressive revenue generator, hitting the Micky D's fry cook late for work harder than the CEO rushing to the motel with his secretary. Finally, photo radar and GPS operate with no judgment. A human cop can make judgments as to what speed he will allow before he starts writing tickets. This decision can be made on real-time factors such as time of day, traffic flow and weather. Your machine would give me the same ticket at 4 in the morning when I was the only car on the road as it would if I was weaving dangerously through rush hour traffic running people off the highway. Living in the over-controled world you have planned for us will not be much fun.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 12:23 pm) 'Nuff Said. Traffic enforcement isn't supposed to be about making money; it's supposed to be about...improving traffic safety. Given that there is no proof that people exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways are causing death and destruction in their wake, the case for photo radar is exceedingly weak. We are basically left with, "It raises lots of money for municipalities." Making it a revenue-raising scheme only increases the opportunity for corruption, and decreases the public's respect for the law. The exact opposite of what any successful and effective statutory and regulatory regime should strive to achieve. larsb: 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. If they are incorrect, it should be easy to show this. If not, maybe it's because I don't rely on "because I said so" to make a point. This isn't about being "humble;" it's about making an argument and supporting it. If you're used to today's sound-bite culture, and think that having a cute slogan or a catchy phrase is a good substitute for sound ideas and arguments backed by logic and real-world experience...well, some of us expect more. If that makes us "long-winded" or our arguments "long-typed," that's just too bad. |
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 07, 2009 12:39 pm) You know why? Because in no state are there laws which say, "Speeding under THIS circumstance is legal but EVERY OTHER TIME it's illegal." Speeding is speeding is speeding, and those who want to do it can pay the $157. Period. If you disagree, take the ticket to court and make your argument. oldfarmer says, "Living in the over-controlled world you have planned for us will not be much fun." Oh, poor poor Mean Ole Me, wanting to make people obey the speed laws !! How dare me !!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 1:03 pm) Relax, buddy, you're going to have a stroke. 
|
|
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
