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 07, 2009 8:32 am) If you say, "And I'll bet if you ask a first responder whether he would prefer to respond to a 55 mph wreck or 25 mph wreck, he would prefer the latter." Then right there you are admitting that he would rather attend a slower-crash wreck. So your example proves mine it true. Thanks !!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 7:32 am) Red herring is a false argument designed to confuse or distract from the real issue. Comes from an old practice of dragging a fish (a literal red herring) across a trail to confuse hunting dogs. As a saying it's right up there with "let them eat cake". 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 8:16 am) Along that line of thinking why don't we have the police just drag speeders out of their cars and shoot them on the spot. That would also get everyone to understand that they are NEVER EVER going to get away with speeding. It would cut down on repeat offenders too. China did that with drug dealers in the good old days and it worked pretty well. Of course some of those bleeding hearts like the ACLU might complain in this country.
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 07, 2009 9:35 am) You respond with a red herring right after schooling me about what they are !! Thanks !!! I have declared a personal war on speeding and speeders. But with no authority to do anything about it in any way, all I can do is vent on these boards. Go Photo Radar !!!
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Jan 07, 2009 9:35 am) LMAO. My office mates are trying to figure out why i am laughing so hard. Love the suggestion. Seriously though, I do agree that speed kills. Obviously a collision at higher speeds is worst than a collision lower speeds. That is basic physics and indisputable. The real issue is the driver. 99% of all accidents are driver error. Whether it's driving too fast, driving too fast for conditions, crossing the yellow line, inattentiveness, disregard for traffic signs/signals, not using your blinkers, drunk driving, etc. I generally drive 10 mph over the speed limit on interstate highways (but stay at the the speed limit in town). If traffic is congested, I slow down and don't tailgate. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 9:02 am) So your example proves mine it true. Thanks !!!! No, it proves how absurd your example is. And nothing you've said proves that people driving 75 mph have more accidents or higher fatalities. So your obsession with people driving 75+ mph on limited access highways is a waste of time. Maybe you don't like to drive that fast, but that's your personal problem that needs to be overcome, not proof that we need a very intrusive enforcement effort to address a "problem" that exists largely in your imagination. Instead of "declaring a personal war on speeders," I'd suggest becoming better informed about really works to improve traffic safety, so that you don't come across as the internet equivalent of the old man squawking at the neighborhood children to "get off my lawn!"
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 07, 2009 9:54 am) I have no particular obsession against any speed. I drive in Texas where the limit is 80 mph, and I usually drive around 85 on that road. It's EXCESSIVE speeding that I hate the most. People driving 15-25 over the limit. You know, GRB, everything we do on this board is a "waste of time" but we still do it. Have you declared a war on time wasting? And unless I have shifted to another dimension, speeding is still an epidemic in this country and which is being now addressed by Photo Radar. Go Photo Radar !!! $157 a pop !!!! Pay up, you Evil-Doers !!!!
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:00 am) Many limited access rural highways have a 65 mph speed limit. Yet, here in Pennsylvania, for example, people regularly drive 80-85 mph. If you think that driving 80+ mph constitutes "excessive speeding," you really do need to get out more. larsb: You know, GRB, everything we do on this board is a "waste of time" but we still do it. Have you declared a war on time wasting? Combatting the ideas of the poorly informed is never a waste of time. larsb: And unless I have shifted to another dimension, speeding is still an epidemic in this country and which is being now addressed by Photo Radar. The better approach is to address it with realistic (read, higher) speed limits.
|
|
|
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 07, 2009 10:03 am) Be careful there. I'm not in that grouping of people. and combating is spelled with one T. grbeck says, "The better approach is to address it with realistic speed limits." To correctly state the issue, add to that statement: "and better enforcement."
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 07, 2009 10:05 am) Sorry, but wailing about people driving 80 mph on a limited access highway, and attempting to drag out the old, discredited "speed kills" baloney for limited access highways does not give one confidence in your knowledge of the subject matter at hand. larsb: and combating is spelled with one T. The American Heritage College Dictionary (Third Edition) lists it as "combatting." Under journalistic spelling conventions, it can be spelled either way. larsb: To correctly state the issue, add to that statement: "and better enforcement." If speed limits are set at realistic levels, the majority of drivers will obey them. Police can worry about more important things - rape, murder and armed robbery come to mind - and there is no need for the employment of intrusive technology that is really designed to raise revenue.
|
|
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
