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: larsb (Jan 12, 2009 11:50 am) |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 12, 2009 11:57 am) No, I said that, on limited access highways, faster drivers tend to be safer drivers. Your approach - mindlessly punishing the sophisticated, informed drivers who don't believe the stupid "speed kills" baloney - will hardly improve safety. larsb: Let's end traffic accidents altogether by just, SIMPLY, telling everyone to drive 10+ miles over the limit !! Heck, if faster is safer, let's just turn the USA freeways into an AutoBahn and get rid of State Troopers altogether ! Traffic fatalities will DROP and think how much extra money the states will have !!! Actually, that is what happened in Montana when it repealed its speed limit after Congress repealed the nationwide 65 mph speed limit. And telling slowpokes to either go with the flow of traffic on limited access highways or stay home would also improve safety. For the first time on this thread, you are actually making sense, even if you probably don't realize it.
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 12, 2009 6:00 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 13, 2009 3:05 pm) Tailgating is almost ALWAYS a result of someone WANTING TO GO FASTER. If that person wanting to GO FASTER is of the mind to go 11+ MPH over the speed limit, they will be ticketed as such. If they want to keep paying $157 every time they want to speed, then if their pockets are deep enough, NO photo radar will not stop them. But most REASONABLE people, once they get tabbed a couple of timed for $157, are going to watch how they drive in photo radar areas. That means not tailgating if the tailgating is a precursor to excessive speeding, which is almost ALWAYS is. So your answer is YES, photo radar can curtail certain instances of tailgating.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 13, 2009 3:03 pm) On the interstate that I most frequently use, the exact opposite is true. That is, the faster drivers tend to be the most dangerous and reckless. On any given 25 or less mile commute I do, I see numerous incidents of the "faster, fastest" drivers intimidating other drivers in left lane by tailgaiting at perhaps 15-20 over posted limit to push lead driver to move over. If most of these drivers were in 911's or Corvettes, then I might think that they might have some extra abilities to brake, slow down, maneuever. But, that is not the case. Too often the intimidators are in pickups, big suvs, small suvs or ordinary cars not having exceptional braking or maneuverability (per Edmunds or R&:T road tests). It is not uncommon to see a pack of 2-4,5,6,etc tailgaters, each about one car length behind the other. In 3-lane segment of interstate, these faster-fastest drivers will also do reckless lane changes moving from left to center to rignt back to center or left etc in order for them to go 20-25 over the limit. Wish that somehow there were unposted, not visible photo radar technology that could catch these dangerous speeders-tailgaters-lane changers.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 14, 2009 6:06 am) OR somebody wanting to WANTING TO GO SLOWER. You know, those morons who think the "Slower traffic keep right" signs don't apply to them.
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Jan 14, 2009 5:07 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Jan 12, 2009 5:46 pm) Well, the tag does say "Do Not Remove Under Penalty Of Law". So evidently it's a sign that must be obeyed. There was an episode of "Mama's Family" where Rue McClanahan confessed to a judge that she removed such a tag from an Oriental rug. Judge told her that normally it's a serious offense, but if she sewed it back on, he'd look the other way! 
|
|
|
53,218 citations issued from one Tempe camera in 2008 Now that the system is broader and issuing more violations, it'll soon be easier to tell if the cameras are making a dent in the accident numbers. There are good signs, Johnson said: In 2008, the number of accidents fell 17 percent. Think how much Tempe police manpower it would have taken, and the amount of overtime paid, to issue this many tickets by human. That camera did the work of 10 cops issuing 15 tickets each in an 8-hour shift. Tempe is already facing a $10 million + budget deficit. The revenue from the cameras is going to be very helpful.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 15, 2009 1:08 pm) "We need more money, install red-light traffic cameras on every intersection!" "Yes sir! Will do." phase two: "We need more money, install speed traffic cameras every 1/4 mile!" "Yes sir! We'll get right on that!" phase three: "Traffic has slowed down, ticket revenue is down. Reduce the grace-margin from 9 mph to 1 mph!" "Right away, Sir!" phase four: "Still not enough revenue!!! Make the grace-margin a negative 2 mph and cut the yellow on traffic lights to a tenth of a second!!!" "Okay, if you're certain. We can do that!" phase five: "Excuse me, Sir? Sir! There's a mob outside the courthouse with torches and pitchforks." |
|
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
