Sign In Join 



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

What is this discussion about? Safe Driving


Messages Page 19 of 179
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
179
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#181 of 1788
Re: what? [grbeck] by larsb
Jan 08, 2009 (2:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 2:00 pm)

grbeck says, "Traffic enforcement should not be about raising revenue"
 
Well, it was to some degree even before Photo Radar came around. Now it's just more in the open.
#182 of 1788
wow by larsb
Jan 08, 2009 (2:22 pm)
Reply
grbeck says, "Police on patrol do more than stop speeders. They also deter petty crimes that are not monitored by photo radar. When we visited London in 2006, one of the complaints of bicyclists was that the heavy reliance on photo radar for traffic enforcement had made the roads MORE dangerous for them...with no police around, drivers were becoming MORE reckless, especially around bicyclists, and photo radar could not stop this."
 
That's why Photo Radar will never completely replace human traffic enforcement.
 
It's just another helpful tool.
#183 of 1788
Re: OK now you make me break out stats [grbeck] by xrunner2
Jan 08, 2009 (7:26 pm)
Reply

Replying to: grbeck (Jan 08, 2009 12:40 pm)

If I understand Post # 1 correctly, this board was set up to discuss photo radar on all types of roads, interstate as well as city/suburban/rural.
 
To extent that photo radar enforcement is identified with signs on roads when used, then it is fair. Anybody complaining about it just underscores that they are really inattentive drivers and don't pay attention as they should to all types of traffic signs as required by law. If they are caught by camera having 10 mph fudge leeway, then they deserve the ticket.
#184 of 1788
Re: what? [larsb] by grbeck
Jan 09, 2009 (8:00 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 2:18 pm)

larsb: Well, it was to some degree even before Photo Radar came around. Now it's just more in the open.
 
It was wrong before, and it's wrong now. If it's more out in the open, instead of celebrating it, we need to take the correct approach and stop it.
#185 of 1788
Re: OK now you make me break out stats [xrunner2] by grbeck
Jan 09, 2009 (8:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 08, 2009 7:26 pm)

xrunner2: To extent that photo radar enforcement is identified with signs on roads when used, then it is fair. Anybody complaining about it just underscores that they are really inattentive drivers and don't pay attention as they should to all types of traffic signs as required by law. If they are caught by camera having 10 mph fudge leeway, then they deserve the ticket.
 
I'd rather have drivers pay attention to the road and other traffic than sign announcing photo radar. And I don't want drivers on interstate highways suddenly slowing down for photo radar. That hardly improves safety.
 
And a "10 mph fudge leeway" is hardly adequate for today's conditions on limited access highways, especially where the speed limit is 65 mph.
 
It's time to take the modern, informed approach and accept that the MINIMUM speed on many of those roads is 70 mph, and many people drive 80-85 mph, and those who don't like it will just have to get used to it. People who want to toddle along like grandma in her Buick Century should perhaps stay home...
#186 of 1788
Comment on larsb by pat85
Jan 09, 2009 (8:13 am)
Reply
"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.
 
I am a young 63 year old. I personally find it more pleasurable to drive faster on limited access highways. I do not consider driving a chore.
 You are not authorized to speak for anyone but yourself,
BTW I have Fresnel lens covers on my license plates so they can't get a picture of them.
One more item, no matter how fast or slow you drive, one should always pay complete attention to the road.
#187 of 1788
Re: OK now you make me break out stats [larsb] by cz75
Jan 09, 2009 (8:14 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Jan 08, 2009 10:51 am)

Speeding doesn't CAUSE accidents. Rather, it exacerbates them. I can and have driven an average speed well in excess of the posted limit and wasn't in danger from just my speed. However, my reaction time to the mistakes of other drivers was dramatically reduced with regard to being able to compensate. Also, at some point, speed will exceed the margin of safety built into the vehicle, with regard to handling and driver ability.
 
If speed was a cause, it would be a forgone outcome that any time one exceeded the posted limit, one would have an accident. The Autobahn effectively disproves this, since speeds are far higher and the death rates significantly lower than in the US. Coincidentally, the limits of highways are quite low considering that they were designed for higher speeds when they were built in the 50s-70s, a period when vehicles and tires were far less capable.
#188 of 1788
Re: Comment on larsb [pat85] by larsb
Jan 09, 2009 (8:33 am)
Reply

Replying to: pat85 (Jan 09, 2009 8:13 am)

I was speaking "as a rule."
 
Every rule has exceptions, and you are one of them
 
Congrats.
#189 of 1788
Re: OK now you make me break out stats [cz75] by larsb
Jan 09, 2009 (8:39 am)
Reply

Replying to: cz75 (Jan 09, 2009 8:14 am)

cz75 says, "Speeding doesn't CAUSE accidents. Rather, it exacerbates them."

Well, as a rule, yes you are correct. Speeding makes an accident worse in almost every case.
 
But speeding CAN be a CAUSE also.
 
Example: You are driving 40 in a 25 zone. A kid's ball bounces in front of you, and you brake and swerve toward the curb to avoid it. At 25 mph, you might stop before the curb or just bump it. At 40 mph, you more than likely will jump the curb and plow into whatever is there. Thus an accident which would not have occurred without speeding now has occurred because of speeding.
 
That's one example that just came to me, but you know there are many others.
 
But yes, as a rule, SPEEDING BY ITSELF rarely causes accidents. True.
#190 of 1788
Re: OK now you make me break out stats [larsb] by cz75
Jan 09, 2009 (8:58 am)
Reply

Replying to: larsb (Jan 09, 2009 8:39 am)

Speeding wasn't the cause, the child with the ball was the cause. I save the calculated risk of exceeding the speed limit for limited access highways with little congestion so I can avoid such exigencies; urban driving is far too congested and unpredictable during most hours.

Messages Page 19 of 179
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
179
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement