Subject:
|
Re: Ticket prices going up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:25:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
550 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> If you have a camera that is using some sort of laser measuring device that
> can determine if a car is doing 101 kph or above, and will only take a
> picture of said automobile if the auto is doing more than 101 kph, then
> where is your arguement? The machine didn't make the law, the machine is
> not changing the law. The machine, as all machines *should* be, is a tool
> for us to use to maintain safety, integrity, and whatever else you wish to
> call it. If the law changes, then we reprogram the machines.
I am fascinated by this thread. I consider myself one who is generally
lawful and generally appreciative of law and codes of conduct. Yet, I
admittedly do not adhere to speed regulations while operating motor vehicles
or heavy equipment. Be it automobiles, forklifts, or go-karts, my driving
style demands speed. I'm not a complete maniac though; speed is the only
rule I violate. All other regulations are followed while driving, just not
speed. (One exception is I will drive slower than posted speeds during bad
weather.)
> Put the speed
> limit up to 120 kph if the studies warrant that 120 is better and safer.
> But if not, then drive the safe and better speed limit.
But how would the studies warrant it? How do we know that a given road is
safe at 10% higher speeds unless we document traffic moving at 10% higher
speeds over time? If you don't allow speeding, how can you study it?
If you ask me, the cameras-with-lasers should be employed to this end:
traffic studies. Let them see how fast people are going not for enforcement
of regulation but to determine if the regulation is reasonable and prudent.
But guess what? I have a little experience in these things, having worked
for a transportation engineering firm while in college. It wasn't my major,
nor am I an expert, but I do have some insight.
Here in New England the majority of traffic regularly moves about 5 or 10
MPH faster than the posted limits. This I know from experience.
Furthermore, studies on automobile accidents indicate that most accidents on
major highways occur when one of the vehicles involves was traveling at
significantly different speeds than the other(s). The "significantly
different" speeds doesn't just mean going too fast, it also includes going
too slow. If everyone is going 75 MPH in heavy traffic and one car tries to
go the limit of 65 MPH, then that slow and legal driver is in fact a safety
hazard. Ergo, slow does not equal safety (as opposed to popular belief).
Oh, and remember that phrase, "reasonable and prudent" I used above? Well,
in my state (and others too I think), you can be ticketed for moving speeds
that are not "reasonable and prudent". Normally police officers apply such
tickets to people driving excessively fast, but IMO they should give just as
many out for going too slow. If it is snowing out, sure it is unreasonable
to go faster than 10 MPH under the limit. Likewise, it is unreasonable to
go slower than 5 MPH over the limit if it is dry, clear, and everyone is
going 10 over.
I also have this argument for speeding: In 14 years of driving in excess of
the limit, I have had only one accident. Most importantly, that accident
occured while my car was completely stopped and signalling to turn (so I
wasn't really in driving in motion). I think my safety record indicates
that if all other rules are followed (and understood!) then speeding is not
as bad as it's made out to be.
HOWEVER, to bring this back to the post that started this thread: I am fully
aware that my speeding is in violation of the rules. And I have always
accepted penalties from the law without question or complaint. I know how
much a ticket can be, and I take my chances that in most places I drive the
police don't bother with the 5 or 10 over. But I don't complain one bit if
I happen to get caught that once in a while that I go 30 over. I pay the
ticket. You pays your money, you takes your chances.
Well, enough babble from me...
-Hendo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ticket prices going up
|
| (...) And again, I would concur with you, Richard--systems should not 'rule' the individual, and Justice should not be left up to machines. But two of the most vocal folks on the side of 'science' are doing away with science when science interferes (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
