You are here:
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
|
grbeck says, "If exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highways were dangerous" That's a completely unreasonable stance.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 8:54 am) Regardless if you "want to drive slower" that's the frickin LAW and you should not disobey it. Driving at 75 versus 65 wastes fuel in EVERY SITUATION.
|
|
|
grbeck says, "If you set speed limits too low, and then use automated technology to raise revenue from said drivers, this is a hidden tax increase. " It's not HIDDEN !!!! There are warning signs "Photo radar enforcement zone" !!!!! A trooper in a secluded location with a radar gun, now THAT's hidden !!!
|
|
|
grbeck says, "No, the solution is to set speed limits at realistic levels, and ignore those who think that driving 80 mph on a limited access highway is somehow dangerous, and should therefore be "taxed."" What are you, some kind of speed freak? You are acting as if 100 years of automobile usage has taught us that SPEED DOES NOT KILL when it's in reality just the opposite !!!
|
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Dec 16, 2008 10:54 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 08, 2009 9:27 am) Amen Bro !! |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 8:58 am) And yet even the "research" you linked to supports it. I would suggest that you take the time to check the latest figures for fatalities per 100 million miles driven in the U.S. Given that it is at a record low, and that people are driving faster than ever on limited access highways, the facts suggest that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways is not dangerous, and traffic safety efforts are better aimed elsewhere. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 9:00 am) Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were the law, too. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that one to convince more sophisticated, better informed drivers of your position. You aren't going to convince anyone who has actually thought about this issue beyond the "speeding is bad, duh!" mentality. larsb: Driving at 75 versus 65 wastes fuel in EVERY SITUATION. Nonsense. I waste fuel if I pour it on the ground after buying it. If I've decided that I'd rather enjoy the safety, convenience and pleasure that come with driving faster on a limited access highway, that is not "wasting" fuel. That's called deciding that it's worth it to use the extra fuel to go faster. If you want to boost your credibility in this discussion, I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between your opinion and fact. Here's lesson one - it's your opinion that driving faster always wastes fuel. Not everyone shares this opinion, and it doesn't make them wrong. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 9:01 am) A trooper in a secluded location with a radar gun, now THAT's hidden !!! I said that the tax increase would be hidden, NOT the photo radar. Reading comprehension can be your friend...
|
|
|
grbeck says, "If you want to boost your credibility in this discussion, I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between your opinion and fact. Here's lesson one - it's your opinion that driving faster always wastes fuel. Not everyone shares this opinion, and it doesn't make them wrong. " So far, you are the only person here doubting my cred, which if you knew me would be ridiculous to doubt. I laugh loudly at your doubt of my cred. Driving faster wastes fuel, and it's NOT an opinion young man. Don't irritate me to the point where I have to start spouting statistics. I've got better beans to re-fry. Don't say anything else about it. You are flat wrong - couldn't be more wrong. ( I'm not going to challenge your "cred" because young guys like you are allowed to be wrong now and again. It's a learning process for you. )
|
|
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