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 10:51 am) "Speeding" can mean driving 55 mph on a city street posted at 35 mph. Or driving 80 mph on a two-lane country road posted at 45 mph. We are not talking about those roads. So those facts you highlighted are worthless to this discussion. Your second link - which is from a law firm website; a hardly credible source, and I say this as an attorney  - can't even get its facts straight. It contains these sentences: "The rate of traffic accident fatalities in the State of Alabama has seen an overall increase since 1998. In 2004, the number of fatales (sic) from car accidents in Alabama was 1,154 deaths as compared to a total of 42,636 throughout the United States." It talks about the "rate of traffic fatalities" but then refers to the raw number of fatalities for one year to supposedly prove its point. The raw number of fatalities and the rate of traffic fatalities are not the same thing. The fatality rate is expressed in fatalities per 100 million miles driven. Your link doesn't even bother to show the increase in the raw number of fatalities from 1998 to 2004. The numbers may very well have increased from 1998 to 2004, although we wouldn't know it from the site - given that Alabama is a growing state, there was undoubtedly an increase in both the number of vehicles, and how many miles said vehicles were driven from 1998 to 2004. That doesn't prove that speeding on limited access highways is dangerous. It may prove that more vehicles being driven more miles may result in more accidents. Maybe those facts can be found by clicking on the "Alabama Auto Accident Information Center"...except that this only takes us to the firm's attorney referral site. So, that factoid is worthless to this discussion, too. Finally, your third link proves nothing, as well, except that survey questions can be framed in a manner to get the results sought by those giving the survey. Also note that the surveyors asked about photo enforcement to combat red-light and stop-sign running, which suggests that respondents were thinking of the use of photo enforcement in urban or suburban settings, not on limited access highways. So it's not really relevant to the discussion, either. And at one time, a majority of people thought that Prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit were good ideas, too.
|
|
|
Replying to: oregonboy (Jan 08, 2009 12:36 pm) I found some stats earlier about a study by NHTSA about driver's attitudes and most of them don't like speeders. And it varies widely by age. Young 'uns like to speed and don't mind other speeders and even get a thrill from speeding. As you get mature, those feelings go away for the vast majority of people. Only those with emotional immaturity or low IQs speed into middle age and older.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 12:40 pm) It's OK though. One day when your maturation process is complete you'll understand...............It's OK........
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 12:04 pm) Which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. Where you go wrong is in your next sentence.... larsb: There is no other acceptable definition of that.Driving 85 uses more fuel than driving 75, and 75 uses more fuel than 65. That's wasting fuel when your car is capable of going 65 mph instead of 85 mph. Wrong. You're definition is not the only acceptable one. Many of us believe that that the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved, extra safety and the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways. That is our OPINION, and it is just as valid as your opinion. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 12:43 pm) As you get mature, those feelings go away for the vast majority of people. Only those with emotional immaturity or low IQs speed into middle age and older. Um, I'm 46, and when I was in Arizona I was passed this summer by many middle-aged drivers traveling at 80+ mph, including the 60-something couple from California in a brand-new BMW 5-Series zipping along at 90 mph (with an Obama sticker on the bumper, no less). It might help to actually pay attention the next time you drive...the minimum speed on most limited access highways away from urban areas is 75 mph, and lots of people are driving 80+ mph. I regularly drive the Pennsylvania Turnpike, with a posted speed limit of 65 mph. Outside of the portions that ring the Philadelphia suburbs, if you aren't driving at least 70 mph, you are blocking traffic.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 12:48 pm) It might be helpful to learn about traffic safety, and how to actually intepret traffic safety statistics, and also learn how to see through a law firm shilling for business. |
|
|
grbeck says, "Many of us believe that that the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved, extra safety and the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways." Your statement has three parts: 1. "the extra fuel used at higher speeds is worth it when balanced against the time saved." - That is a worthy opinion and I would agree with that. I do that on long trips - the faster I get there the better I like it. But I don't violate speed laws to do it. 2. "extra safety" - Complete poppycock. Driving faster is not safer in any stretch, unless driving slower would cause to you get rear-ended. 3. "the fact that it is usually more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways" - True for some people, but mostly only younger males. When you get older, driving is more of a CHORE than any kind of FUN. The faster you drive, the more you need to pay complete attention to the road, which is why younger drivers who drive fast have more fatal accidents.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 12:53 pm) And I have no problem with people driving 80 in a 75 zone - I do that myself. When you get above 85 though, your reaction time to avoid a potential problem is far far reduced. |
|
|
Y'all are posting too fast for me to pop in and kill the off-topic personal comments, but let's at least try to get back to photo radar and whether it should be implemented or not, and where. And try to keep it civil.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jan 08, 2009 1:02 pm) I'm trying, but he keeps sniping away at me. ( You know I have learned through trial and error that attacking the person instead of the idea is not proper round here. ) Anyway, I am a fan of Photo Radar and anything else that gets people to pay attention to how fast they are driving.
|
|
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
