Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Photo Radar

13567…38

Comments

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: Then right there you are admitting that he would rather attend a slower-crash wreck.

    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!" ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "...your obsession with people driving 75+ mph on limited access highways is a waste of time."

    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 !!!!
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: It's EXCESSIVE speeding that I hate the most. People driving 15-25 over the limit.

    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.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "Combatting the ideas of the poorly informed is never a waste of time."

    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."
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: Be careful there. I'm not in that grouping of people.

    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.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "If speed limits are set at realistic levels, the majority of drivers will obey them."

    The "majority" of drivers obey them now. Mostly. Some areas are far worse.

    The problem remains, no matter how you try to rationalize around it, that far too many people get away with driving far too fast for safety.

    If Photo Radar can help with that, we should all be begging for it.

    grbeck says, "intrusive technology"

    You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means when it comes to photo radar. It's no more intrusive than getting stopped and risking OTHER citations.

    You think them folks who get caught for speeding then end up arrested for other stuff think "a couple of snapshots" are more intrusive than a full-body and full-vehicle search? Please.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "...does not give one confidence in your knowledge of the subject matter at hand. "

    You've been around here long enough to understand that you can attack the IDEA but should avoid attacking the PERSON behind the idea.

    Basic etiquette.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: The "majority" of drivers obey them now. Mostly. Some areas are far worse.

    If you are talking about urban areas, or even suburban streets, yes, the majority of people do obey posted speed limits.

    On limited access highways, they do not. If you wish, I can take you on a long drive on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and I-81, with the cruise set at 65 mph, to let you see firsthand how many people are driving faster than the posted 65 mph speed limit.

    larsb: The problem remains, no matter how you try to rationalize around it, that far too many people get away with driving far too fast for safety.

    Except, of course, that fatalities per 100 million miles driven have reached record lows in this country, and the raw numbers of fatalities dropped dramatically in early 2008, even though there is no proof that people were slowing down.

    So, there is no proof whatsoever that are roads are the scene of Automotive Armageddon because people are driving faster than 75 mph. Looks to me like our roads are safer than ever.

    larsb: You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means when it comes to photo radar. It's no more intrusive than getting stopped and risking OTHER citations.

    If you think having your actions monitored by an impersonal traffic camera that issues a ticket without taking other, intangible factors into account is the same as being pulled over by a police officer for a routine traffic stop, you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    larsb: You think them folks who get caught for speeding then end up arrested for other stuff think "a couple of snapshots" are more intrusive than a full-body and full-vehicle search? Please.

    You earlier complained about the introduction of red herrings on this thread.

    You just introduced a big one yourself, as routine stops for traffic violations do not automatically result in full-body and full-vehicle searches. Police officers must have a reason to conduct a full-body and full-vehicle search, and driving 80 mph in the 65 mph zone, by itself, does not constitute a sufficient reason.

    We are comparing photo radar to routine traffic stops, not photo radar to arrests for more serious offenses uncovered when the police officer makes the initial traffic stop. (If you talk to law enforcement officials, you will discover that the initial traffic stop in those cases was often a pretext because the officer knew that something more serious was occurring).
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    I didn't attack you; I questioned your knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    "I questioned your knowledge of the subject matter at hand. "

    You did in fact attack him by the above statement which is at least, "Rude"

    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength, Eric Hoffer
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    euphonium: You did in fact attack him by the above statement which is at least, "Rude"

    Sorry, but there is a considerable difference between questioning someone's knowledge of the subject matter at hand, and being rude. If you put an idea out there, expect to have it criticized, and if you make claims that can't be supported, expect to have them rebutted. And if it looks as though you don't have a firm grasp of the subject matter at hand, expect to be called on it.

    We're not in pre-school where everyone's ideas are "great," or where the teacher is going to drag out the Barney tapes and tell us all that we are special just because we have an idea.

    euphonium: Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength, Eric Hoffer

    Claims of rudeness are a distraction designed to cover for a lack of knowledge by those raising the charge, grbeck. ;)

    Or, in this particular discussion, a very weak case for the widespread use of photo radar.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "Or, in this particular discussion, a very weak case for the widespread use of photo radar. "

    So weak that everyone here is agreeing with you.

    Photo radar saves time and money and MAKES MONEY and targets the people who are violating the law in the worst fashion.

    'Nuff Said.

    P.S. I've seen your long-typed rebuttals all over Edmunds, and I have yet to see you make an humble statement or come to realize you might not be right in every case. Just because you see your point in perfect clarity (as I do this one) does not mean that you are correct in every aspect of your assessment. No problem for me, but something you might want to think about.
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 22,646
    "...You respond with a red herring..."

    No, more like using an extreme example to make a point. You advocated for GPS monitors I just took it to the next logical level of government intrusion into personal behavior.

    I normally don't speed at all. Having a sporty red car in the speed trap heaven of upstate NY makes it difficult. I also don't like wasting gas so I'm usually on cruise control at or below the limit. I also think that while speed itself doesn't kill, it makes the problems which arise from human error worse and thus begrudgingly agree that we need some form of speed enforcement.

    Having said that, I disagree that photo radar, GPS trackers or other big brother enforcement are the way to go. They seem to be too obtrusive and revenue motivated for my liking. They also are a regressive revenue generator, hitting the Micky D's fry cook late for work harder than the CEO rushing to the motel with his secretary.

    Finally, photo radar and GPS operate with no judgment. A human cop can make judgments as to what speed he will allow before he starts writing tickets. This decision can be made on real-time factors such as time of day, traffic flow and weather. Your machine would give me the same ticket at 4 in the morning when I was the only car on the road as it would if I was weaving dangerously through rush hour traffic running people off the highway.

    Living in the over-controled world you have planned for us will not be much fun.

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: Photo radar saves time and money and MAKES MONEY and targets the people who are violating the law in the worst fashion.

    'Nuff Said.

    Traffic enforcement isn't supposed to be about making money; it's supposed to be about...improving traffic safety. Given that there is no proof that people exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways are causing death and destruction in their wake, the case for photo radar is exceedingly weak. We are basically left with, "It raises lots of money for municipalities."

    Making it a revenue-raising scheme only increases the opportunity for corruption, and decreases the public's respect for the law. The exact opposite of what any successful and effective statutory and regulatory regime should strive to achieve.

    larsb: P.S. I've seen your long-typed rebuttals all over Edmunds, and I have yet to see you make an humble statement or come to realize you might not be right in every case. Just because you see your point in perfect clarity (as I do this one) does not mean that you are correct in every aspect of your assessment. No problem for me, but something you might want to think about.

    If they are incorrect, it should be easy to show this. If not, maybe it's because I don't rely on "because I said so" to make a point. This isn't about being "humble;" it's about making an argument and supporting it. If you're used to today's sound-bite culture, and think that having a cute slogan or a catchy phrase is a good substitute for sound ideas and arguments backed by logic and real-world experience...well, some of us expect more. If that makes us "long-winded" or our arguments "long-typed," that's just too bad.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    oldfarmer says, "Your machine would give me the same ticket at 4 in the morning when I was the only car on the road as it would if I was weaving dangerously through rush hour traffic running people off the highway."

    You know why? Because in no state are there laws which say, "Speeding under THIS circumstance is legal but EVERY OTHER TIME it's illegal." Speeding is speeding is speeding, and those who want to do it can pay the $157. Period. If you disagree, take the ticket to court and make your argument.

    oldfarmer says, "Living in the over-controlled world you have planned for us will not be much fun."

    Oh, poor poor Mean Ole Me, wanting to make people obey the speed laws !! How dare me !!!!
  • oldfarmer50oldfarmer50 Member Posts: 22,646
    "...MEAN OLE ME..."

    Relax, buddy, you're going to have a stroke. :sick:

    2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible

  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    larsb, you need to read some Orwell. Its not that people are opposed to clamping down on excessive and unreasonable speeding, rather it is about the intrusion on the civil liberties and privacy that are part of the rights and principles America was founded on. We don't need more Big Brother in the US and Americans don't want it either. As for Phoenix, it sounds like they are taking the same approach that the mayor of Chicago is in using cameras as another hidden tax increase. If you watch WGN news on cable TV you'll see how Chicago seems to be mortaging its future to pay for its political machine excesses today. Of course, constantly rising taxes and fees are driving business out of Chicago creating a hopeless circle. Hopefully Phoenix won't fall into this same trap.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I don't need to read some Orwell.

    I am a part of the leadership of this country, as are you.

    Neither you nor I would ever allow the "worst" of the Orwellian paranoia scenarios to take place.

    The problem is, Photo Radar is not Orwellian in any estimation, IMHO.

    What photo radar merely is: an automated tool to help the police catch and punish speeders. Which is something that EVERY ordinary American SHOULD want.

    That's right - I'm reminding you that we all should want people to drive slower, waste less fuel, and reduce road rage incidents.

    And in Phoenix, cameras are not a "hidden tax increase." They are a speeders tax, just as tobacco taxes are paid by tobacco users, gasoline taxes are paid by gasoline users, and homeowners taxes are paid by homeowners.

    If you don't want to pay the "speeders tax" then don't drive 11+ MPH over the speed limit. If you DO want to drive that fast, then you can pay the "tax" for it.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: What photo radar merely is: an automated tool to help the police catch and punish speeders. Which is something that EVERY ordinary American SHOULD want.

    If exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highways were dangerous, you'd have a point, but since it isn't, you don't.

    larsb: That's right - I'm reminding you that we all should want people to drive slower, waste less fuel, and reduce road rage incidents.

    And, I'm reminding you again that not everyone wants to drive "slower;" driving at higher speeds is not a waste of fuel for most people (otherwise they wouldn't do it); and there is no proof that driving slower reduces road rage.

    If you really want to reduce road rage, I'd suggest that you stop driving 55 mph when every one else is driving 75 mph... ;)

    larsb: And in Phoenix, cameras are not a "hidden tax increase." They are a speeders tax, just as tobacco taxes are paid by tobacco users, gasoline taxes are paid by gasoline users, and homeowners taxes are paid by homeowners.

    If you set speed limits too low, and then use automated technology to raise revenue from said drivers, this is a hidden tax increase.

    larsb: If you don't want to pay the "speeders tax" then don't drive 11+ MPH over the speed limit. If you DO want to drive that fast, then you can pay the "tax" for it.

    No, the solution is to set speed limits at realistic levels, and ignore those who think that driving 80 mph on a limited access highway is somehow dangerous, and should therefore be "taxed."
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "If exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highways were dangerous"

    That's a completely unreasonable stance.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "And, I'm reminding you again that not everyone wants to drive "slower;" driving at higher speeds is not a waste of fuel for most people"

    Regardless if you "want to drive slower" that's the frickin LAW and you should not disobey it.

    Driving at 75 versus 65 wastes fuel in EVERY SITUATION.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "If you set speed limits too low, and then use automated technology to raise revenue from said drivers, this is a hidden tax increase. "

    It's not HIDDEN !!!! There are warning signs "Photo radar enforcement zone" !!!!!

    A trooper in a secluded location with a radar gun, now THAT's hidden !!!
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "No, the solution is to set speed limits at realistic levels, and ignore those who think that driving 80 mph on a limited access highway is somehow dangerous, and should therefore be "taxed.""

    What are you, some kind of speed freak? You are acting as if 100 years of automobile usage has taught us that SPEED DOES NOT KILL when it's in reality just the opposite !!!
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Formula for camera recording is "very, very" generous. 11+ for 55 and under, 10+ for 65 and over. What is so hard for drivers to follow this. Anyone getting ticket truly deserves it for being both stupid and inattentive. These types of drivers should really have their drivers licenses revoked after 2 or 3 photo tickets.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    xrunner2 says, "Anyone getting ticket truly deserves it for being both stupid and inattentive."

    Amen Bro !!
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: That's a completely unreasonable stance.

    And yet even the "research" you linked to supports it.

    I would suggest that you take the time to check the latest figures for fatalities per 100 million miles driven in the U.S. Given that it is at a record low, and that people are driving faster than ever on limited access highways, the facts suggest that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways is not dangerous, and traffic safety efforts are better aimed elsewhere.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: Regardless if you "want to drive slower" that's the frickin LAW and you should not disobey it.

    Prohibition and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 were the law, too. You'll have to come up with a better argument than that one to convince more sophisticated, better informed drivers of your position. You aren't going to convince anyone who has actually thought about this issue beyond the "speeding is bad, duh!" mentality.

    larsb: Driving at 75 versus 65 wastes fuel in EVERY SITUATION.

    Nonsense. I waste fuel if I pour it on the ground after buying it. If I've decided that I'd rather enjoy the safety, convenience and pleasure that come with driving faster on a limited access highway, that is not "wasting" fuel. That's called deciding that it's worth it to use the extra fuel to go faster.

    If you want to boost your credibility in this discussion, I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between your opinion and fact. Here's lesson one - it's your opinion that driving faster always wastes fuel. Not everyone shares this opinion, and it doesn't make them wrong.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: It's not HIDDEN !!!! There are warning signs "Photo radar enforcement zone" !!!!!

    A trooper in a secluded location with a radar gun, now THAT's hidden !!!

    I said that the tax increase would be hidden, NOT the photo radar. Reading comprehension can be your friend...
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "If you want to boost your credibility in this discussion, I'd suggest you start by learning the difference between your opinion and fact. Here's lesson one - it's your opinion that driving faster always wastes fuel. Not everyone shares this opinion, and it doesn't make them wrong. "

    So far, you are the only person here doubting my cred, which if you knew me would be ridiculous to doubt. I laugh loudly at your doubt of my cred.

    Driving faster wastes fuel, and it's NOT an opinion young man. Don't irritate me to the point where I have to start spouting statistics. I've got better beans to re-fry.

    Don't say anything else about it. You are flat wrong - couldn't be more wrong.

    ( I'm not going to challenge your "cred" because young guys like you are allowed to be wrong now and again. It's a learning process for you. )
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Polarized covers over license plates is probably obstruction of law enforcement. Should be written up by meter maids when found looking for parking infractions.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    It's a speeding tax, and it's in no way hidden.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: What are you, some kind of speed freak?

    You really do need to get out more so that you have a more sophisticated understanding of this issue.

    Many people drive 80-85 mph on limited access highways. It's perfectly safe.

    In fact, this past summer, I drove on a round trip from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, stopping at the Grand Canyon and the Painted Desert along the way back from New Mexico. So we spent considerable time driving in Arizona - your home state.

    We drove 80 mph most of the way on the limited access highways, and were still passed by a fair number of people. I guess in your world, something like 80 percent of the driving population are "speed freaks" because they drive faster than 80 mph.

    larsb: You are acting as if 100 years of automobile usage has taught us that SPEED DOES NOT KILL when it's in reality just the opposite !!!

    Uh, no, check out the safety statistics since the automobile came into common use and the government began compiling annual traffic fatality stastitics. Our roads are safer than ever, even as people are driving faster than ever. And limited access highways are among our safest roads, even with the highest speeds. So, the reality is the opposite of what you are saying.

    Really, you should not be wasting time posting on Edmunds.com.

    With your ability to pick a position, and insist that the entire world should share it, and then ignore the facts and continue to insist that said position is the right one, you should be heading the product planning or marketing department of General Motors. You could make good money, and when everything is on the verge of collapse, you could then journey to Washington, D.C. and get a big fat bailout because nothing was your fault...
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,140
    You mean obstruction of revenue collection...

    And I must say it again, these photo cash grabs seem to have pretty wide loopholes...just lie your way out of it. Telling a tale to a bunch of liars, cowards, and thieves isn't a sin, right? :shades:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    There you go with the personal attacks again.

    I've been an adult for 27 years, and am an owner of two college degrees. Spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. Make my living with my brain.

    I'm not saying 80-85 is unsafe. I said it's less safe than 70-75 mpg, and if you are unable to grasp the truth of that statement, then I feel for you.

    If you are unable to grasp the fact that more damage is done to human tissue in a higher speed wreck than in a lower speed wreck, then again, I feel for you.

    I'm finished discussing it with you, because it's obvious that only life experience will convince you of the error of your position.

    You get the last word. I'm man enough to let you have it. I'll not comment further on the issue with you.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: So far, you are the only person here doubting my cred, which if you knew me would be ridiculous to doubt. I laugh loudly at your doubt of my cred

    No, I'm the only still debating you NOW. Others have disagreed with you on this very thread.

    larsb: Driving faster wastes fuel, and it's NOT an opinion young man. Don't irritate me to the point where I have to start spouting statistics. I've got better beans to re-fry.larsb: Don't say anything else about it. You are flat wrong - couldn't be more wrong."

    Wrong - see above.

    larsb: ( I'm not going to challenge your "cred" because young guys like you are allowed to be wrong now and again. It's a learning process for you. )

    When you have something to teach, please let me know. In the meantime, if you want to have a more sophisticated understanding of this issue, I'd suggest stop by what you think you know, because it isn't all that much.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "I'd suggest stop by what you think you know, because it isn't all that much. "

    Sign of a person with a weak argument - they stoop to personal attacks.

    Over and over and over again.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    grbeck says, "When you have something to teach, please let me know."

    What would it matter? When you refuse to accept facts, you cannot learn.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: There you go with the personal attacks again.

    That wasn't a personal attack. It was a suggestion that you don't know what you are talking about, and helpful advice on a new, possibly more lucrative career path.

    larsb: I've been an adult for 27 years, and am an owner of two college degrees. Spent 6 years in the Marine Corps. Make my living with my brain.

    Unfortunately, while your resume is impressive, and I applaud your service to our country, it doesn't appear to have allowed you much time to gain a true understanding of traffic safety issues, and what will really work to improve traffic safety.

    larsb: I'm not saying 80-85 is unsafe. I said it's less safe than 70-75 mpg, and if you are unable to grasp the truth of that statement, then I feel for you.

    Given your accusation that anyone who drives over the speed limit is a "speed freak," and that all speeding is dangerous, and regular wailing about people passing you at 75 mph, I'm not sure how you can now claim that you are not saying that 80-85 mph is unsafe. And please note that there is no proof that higher speeds on limited access highways have resulted in more accidents or fatalities...both of which are at record lows in the U.S.

    larsb: If you are unable to grasp the fact that more damage is done to human tissue in a higher speed wreck than in a lower speed wreck, then again, I feel for you. That is not a personal attack.

    We want the same thing - safe roads. I just advocate using what works - setting higher, more realistic speed limits, not worrying about "speeders" on limited access highways, tigher licensing requirements for brand-new teenager drivers, eliminating ignoramuses who camp in the left lane, and going after drunk drivers.

    Note that the use of photo radar isn't going to help in those enforcement efforts.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    larsb: What would it matter? When you refuse to accept facts, you cannot learn.

    Come to my office in Harrisburg, and over a nice lunch, I'll help you learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions." Lunch will be on me.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    This, from someone who nitpicks at alleged spelling errors (and ends up being wrong). :blush:
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    I've only one degree and spent four years in the Army followed by 40 years in the casualty insurance business and the later enabled me to agree with you 100%.

    Others who claim statistics of safety may be correct only because crashes are safer to endure due to the advent of air bags, belts, & other devices not available fifty years ago.

    Opposing advocates of your/our position regarding photo radar will continue to violate the law, pay their fines, but never learn driving discipline while forgetting the speed limit sign trumps the keep right sign.

    In summary, your opinion represents the silent majority, not represented in these posts. ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, at least in one state, speeding is the number one cause of accidents:

    In fact, reports by the New York State Police show that the following factors (in order) cause the most accidents - and all of them are under the driver's control:

    1. Speeding
    2. Unsafe or too-frequent lane changing
    3. Not using turn signals
    4. Tailgating
    5. Not yielding the right of way
    6. Ignoring traffic signals
    7. Driving while impaired by alcohol or chemicals.


    from this page:

    link title

    More?

    Reckless driving and speeding resulted in 508 deaths in Alabama. The economic cost of speeding related accidents was approximately $534 million in 2004. Source: State Traffic Safety Information – NHTSA – March 2006

    from this page:

    link title

    More?

    Over two-thirds of all drivers felt it was a good idea to use photo enforcement devices to reduce speeding, not obeying stop signs and running red lights. Those who thought photo enforcement was a good idea said it would decrease the occurrence of these unsafe actions and that it would provide solid proof of the violation. Conversely, those who thought it was a bad idea in these three situations, cited privacy concerns and a preference for personal interaction. When asked about using photo enforcement in specific locations, over two-thirds felt the devices would curtail added congestion from the "pullover" scene, particularly in places where it is hazardous to stop. An even higher number of drivers supported the implementation of the photo enforcement devices in locations where crashes frequently occurred (four in five) and in school zones (nine in ten).


    link title
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Careful with surveys, you can manipulate the statistics and the results. I might buy cameras in high crime areas to fight felonies, but not for simple misdemeanor stuff like red lights and speed.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Only if you subscribe to the myth, "Two wrongs make a right". ;)
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,140
    Isn't that the American way? :P
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    You get the last word. I'm man enough to let you have it. I'll not comment further on the issue with you.

    wrong again :sick:
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Yes and reserved for Americans only. If you can't vote here, you don't count here. :P
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I meant the specific issue presented by his post. Not the ENTIRE topic.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Believe me kind sir, I do indeed know the difference.

    Speed/Fuel chart

    Driving 10 mph faster than the speed limit increases fuel consumption by 20%. Increase speed to 20 mph faster than necessary and the extra gas wastage climbs to 25%. Stay within the speed limit to stretch your fuel budget further.

    link title

    image

    Any more challenges to the "driving faster wastes fuel" FACT?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    In my opinion, it's kind of fun having people call a fact an opinion and then proving that the fact is actually a fact and not an opinion after all.........
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles