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
1787 messages, Last post on Nov 06, 2009 at 9:07 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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) 
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:20 am) wrong again 
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Jan 08, 2009 11:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: oregonboy (Jan 08, 2009 11:28 am) |
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 10:34 am) Speed/Fuel chart Driving 10 mph faster than the speed limit increases fuel consumption by 20%. Increase speed to 20 mph faster than necessary and the extra gas wastage climbs to 25%. Stay within the speed limit to stretch your fuel budget further. link title  Any more challenges to the "driving faster wastes fuel" FACT? |
|
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
