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 08, 2009 10:22 am) Sign of a person with a weak argument - they stoop to personal attacks. Over and over and over again.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 10:22 am) What would it matter? When you refuse to accept facts, you cannot learn.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:20 am) That wasn't a personal attack. It was a suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about, and helpful advice on a new, possibly more lucrative career path. larsb: I've been an adult for 27 years, and am an owner of two college degrees. Spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. Make my living with my brain. Unfortunately, while your resume is impressive, and I applaud your service to our country, it doesn't appear to have allowed you much time to gain a true understanding of traffic safety issues, and what will really work to improve traffic safety. larsb: I'm not saying 80-85 is unsafe. I said it's less safe than 70-75 mpg, and if you are unable to grasp the truth of that statement, then I feel for you. Given your accusation that anyone who drives over the speed limit is a "speed freak," and that all speeding is dangerous, and regular wailing about people passing you at 75 mph, I'm not sure how you can now claim that you are not saying that 80-85 mph is unsafe. And please note that there is no proof that higher speeds on limited access highways have resulted in more accidents or fatalities...both of which are at record lows in the U.S. larsb: If you are unable to grasp the fact that more damage is done to human tissue in a higher speed wreck than in a lower speed wreck, then again, I feel for you. That is not a personal attack. We want the same thing - safe roads. I just advocate using what works - setting higher, more realistic speed limits, not worrying about "speeders" on limited access highways, tigher licensing requirements for brand-new teenager drivers, eliminating ignoramuses who camp in the left lane, and going after drunk drivers. Note that the use of photo radar isn't going to help in those enforcement efforts. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:25 am) Come to my office in Harrisburg, and over a nice lunch, I'll help you learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions." Lunch will be on me.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:24 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:20 am) Others who claim statistics of safety may be correct only because crashes are safer to endure due to the advent of air bags, belts, & other devices not available fifty years ago. Opposing advocates of your/our position regarding photo radar will continue to violate the law, pay their fines, but never learn driving discipline while forgetting the speed limit sign trumps the keep right sign. In summary, your opinion represents the silent majority, not represented in these posts. 
|
|
|
Well, at least in one state, speeding is the number one cause of accidents: In fact, reports by the New York State Police show that the following factors (in order) cause the most accidents - and all of them are under the driver's control: 1. Speeding 2. Unsafe or too-frequent lane changing 3. Not using turn signals 4. Tailgating 5. Not yielding the right of way 6. Ignoring traffic signals 7. Driving while impaired by alcohol or chemicals. from this page: link title More? Reckless driving and speeding resulted in 508 deaths in Alabama. The economic cost of speeding related accidents was approximately $534 million in 2004. Source: State Traffic Safety Information – NHTSA – March 2006 from this page: link title More? Over two-thirds of all drivers felt it was a good idea to use photo enforcement devices to reduce speeding, not obeying stop signs and running red lights. Those who thought photo enforcement was a good idea said it would decrease the occurrence of these unsafe actions and that it would provide solid proof of the violation. Conversely, those who thought it was a bad idea in these three situations, cited privacy concerns and a preference for personal interaction. When asked about using photo enforcement in specific locations, over two-thirds felt the devices would curtail added congestion from the "pullover" scene, particularly in places where it is hazardous to stop. An even higher number of drivers supported the implementation of the photo enforcement devices in locations where crashes frequently occurred (four in five) and in school zones (nine in ten). link title
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:51 am) |
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jan 08, 2009 10:17 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: euphonium (Jan 08, 2009 11:04 am) 
|
|
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
