U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Good way to make money! I wonder If I could set one up and......
Cameras accuse 2,600 of speeding
- Thread starter Desertdog
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Historically, smaller towns have used too-slow speed limits (coupled with strict enforcement on out-of-towners) as revenue producers. Lots of stories about places like Palmetto, Florida, or Selma, Texas. (SOB doesn't necessarily mean "Selma Official Bear".)
A study was done by the Society of Automotive Engineers a number of years back on the relationships between speed and safety. On Interstates, a driver is safest if he drives about 7% to 8% faster than median traffic speed. That's actual driving speed, not related to speed limits. You're safer if you drive faster than most other drivers, even if EVERYBODY is speeding. There is a reason.
On Interstates, traffic tends to run in clumps. If you're running faster than a clump, you pass one car at a time, with you being the decision maker. If you're driving within the clump, you're relying on all those other drivers to always make correct judgements of time/speed/distance. If you're driving below the speed of the clump, you're also relying on all of those other drivers making correct decisions about lane changes and suchlike as they pass you.
So, you get past a clump and you're running solo, all alone, for a fairly long period of time--and that's as safe as it gets.
Traffic engineers have told me that the overall safest condition in a city is to set a speed limit which is 85% of the median speed of all drivers in that reach of street. Unfortunately, local politics often sets limits too low, both from erroneous perceived safety and for revenue generation.
I have no objection to speed limits in school zones, but I'd like to see a change to include "When Children Are Present". Their presence is commonly only some fifteen minutes to thirty minutes out of a two- or three-hour control period.
As far as raw speed and speed limits, I'm one who only considers road conditions and my tires--and, of course, the cops. But I've probably got more time above 100 mph than almost anybody on this board, from years of sports car racing. Even a little time up around 200, and a fair amount in the 130 to 150 range. I've never had an off-track whoopee. But I'm generally at or below the speed limit in towns, with my head like a little hootie owl, always turning and looking for that guy who's out to get me.
And old age has me deliberately slowing down to where "I'm down there with the incompetent."
Art
"Life begins at 180"
A study was done by the Society of Automotive Engineers a number of years back on the relationships between speed and safety. On Interstates, a driver is safest if he drives about 7% to 8% faster than median traffic speed. That's actual driving speed, not related to speed limits. You're safer if you drive faster than most other drivers, even if EVERYBODY is speeding. There is a reason.
On Interstates, traffic tends to run in clumps. If you're running faster than a clump, you pass one car at a time, with you being the decision maker. If you're driving within the clump, you're relying on all those other drivers to always make correct judgements of time/speed/distance. If you're driving below the speed of the clump, you're also relying on all of those other drivers making correct decisions about lane changes and suchlike as they pass you.
So, you get past a clump and you're running solo, all alone, for a fairly long period of time--and that's as safe as it gets.
Traffic engineers have told me that the overall safest condition in a city is to set a speed limit which is 85% of the median speed of all drivers in that reach of street. Unfortunately, local politics often sets limits too low, both from erroneous perceived safety and for revenue generation.
I have no objection to speed limits in school zones, but I'd like to see a change to include "When Children Are Present". Their presence is commonly only some fifteen minutes to thirty minutes out of a two- or three-hour control period.
As far as raw speed and speed limits, I'm one who only considers road conditions and my tires--and, of course, the cops. But I've probably got more time above 100 mph than almost anybody on this board, from years of sports car racing. Even a little time up around 200, and a fair amount in the 130 to 150 range. I've never had an off-track whoopee. But I'm generally at or below the speed limit in towns, with my head like a little hootie owl, always turning and looking for that guy who's out to get me.
And old age has me deliberately slowing down to where "I'm down there with the incompetent."
Art
"Life begins at 180"
Most laws are made for the incompetent....and others have to suffer. I just estimated how many miles I have driven over my life.....approx. 920,000....and only 1 accident (1956) when a guy ran a stop sign. Boy, did I T-Bone him....good! The #1 rule of the road is: Keep to the right except when passing. Approx. 80% of the people don't know or care about this. #2 rule: Use your mirrors; #3 Use your gas instead of your brake. Also, I believe that 70% of women and 40% of men should be banned from driving. Me?. In the past (Yrs ago) I've run cops....got away 6 for 6 times. Age? Older than 99% of you. Do I "speed"? If I can get away with it. Haven't had a ticket in 16 yrs. And yes, I drag from stop lights if I get the chance....I'm 67-2 in 4 yrs.
I like the idea of traffic enforcement for the sake of safety. I deplore the idea of traffic enforcement as a revenue generator. The latter encourages a disrespect for the law, and reinforces an unhealthy relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Reasonable and prudent should be the law of the road (at least on the highway).
There's another reason that running faster than traffic on the highway tends to be safer--you don't have to pay quite as much attention to what's happening behind you. That effectively reduces the amount of data you have to process and makes it easier to keep track of things.
goose,
I disagree. The #1 rule of the road should be PAY ATTENTION. The #2 rule should be COURTESY. The rest falls in line.
Reasonable and prudent should be the law of the road (at least on the highway).
There's another reason that running faster than traffic on the highway tends to be safer--you don't have to pay quite as much attention to what's happening behind you. That effectively reduces the amount of data you have to process and makes it easier to keep track of things.
goose,
I disagree. The #1 rule of the road should be PAY ATTENTION. The #2 rule should be COURTESY. The rest falls in line.
The even more serious issue is
A lot of these systems are operated by private, for-profit contractors, who are paid based on the amount of revenue the cameras generate.
I know it's fashionable these days to say that the private sector can do everything better than the government, but does anybody really think privatizing law enforcement is a good idea???
Somehow, "cops for profit" scares me more than I can say.
--Shannon
A lot of these systems are operated by private, for-profit contractors, who are paid based on the amount of revenue the cameras generate.
I know it's fashionable these days to say that the private sector can do everything better than the government, but does anybody really think privatizing law enforcement is a good idea???
Somehow, "cops for profit" scares me more than I can say.
--Shannon
coylh
Member
DocZinn:
Well, it's worth debating. But I think you will have a hard time convincing a judge that driving as fast as you want when you judge it safe is your inalienable right.
I think that in some areas it's not practical to judge each person by a standard that takes into account the individual's abilities. So, we try to draw a reasonable line in the sand, even if that means restricting people's freedom. Some people may be perfectly safe drivers with a BAC of .1 for example.
Well, it's worth debating. But I think you will have a hard time convincing a judge that driving as fast as you want when you judge it safe is your inalienable right.
I think that in some areas it's not practical to judge each person by a standard that takes into account the individual's abilities. So, we try to draw a reasonable line in the sand, even if that means restricting people's freedom. Some people may be perfectly safe drivers with a BAC of .1 for example.
Desertdog
Member
That is what they normally have here. Now ask a cop to define it and you will probably get "when children are in school."
DRZinn
Member
Got a source for that? I'd love to show it to my wife....
As if the judge's opinion had any bearing on whether a thing is right or wrong.
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
What really scares me are the people on this forum who think that automatic tickets are OK. What's even scarier are the people who justify it because speeding is "against the law" and so everyone will be OK if they just obey. umm.. HELLO?! ***? It sounds an awful lot like the blissninny sheep who say "well, I'm not worried about the ______ method of law enforcement, because I'm not breaking the law". :banghead:
So guys, what's next, huh? Automatic tickets for going through a stop sign a 1 MPH? Automatic tickets for J-walking? Automatic tickets for smoking in the wrong area? Where does it end? Do you get it yet? How about robot cops in your house, is that OK? I mean, you are a law abiding citizen, right? How about robot cop cameras hovering in the sky, video taping you all the time? Robot cop cameras in national parks, robot cop cameras in the deserts... it's OK because you're not breaking the law, right? How about hidden spy programs in your computer watching what you type, making sure it's all legal? No one has an inalienable right to hate/revolutionary/pornographic/terrorist speech, right? Do you @#$&%#$ get it yet?
You know, I'm glad the founding fathers are dead, because if they saw some of the BS people willingly accept today, they would die of disgust.
So guys, what's next, huh? Automatic tickets for going through a stop sign a 1 MPH? Automatic tickets for J-walking? Automatic tickets for smoking in the wrong area? Where does it end? Do you get it yet? How about robot cops in your house, is that OK? I mean, you are a law abiding citizen, right? How about robot cop cameras hovering in the sky, video taping you all the time? Robot cop cameras in national parks, robot cop cameras in the deserts... it's OK because you're not breaking the law, right? How about hidden spy programs in your computer watching what you type, making sure it's all legal? No one has an inalienable right to hate/revolutionary/pornographic/terrorist speech, right? Do you @#$&%#$ get it yet?
You know, I'm glad the founding fathers are dead, because if they saw some of the BS people willingly accept today, they would die of disgust.
- Status
