I whole heartedly agree!

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:35 AM, 'ray' via PoliticalForum <
politicalforum@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Speed limits are nothing more than a revenue collection method imposed on
> drivers, who have actually caused no harm. Two shining examples of the
> fallacy of official government hypocritical slogan that ticketing speeders
> is a safety priority and saves lives: Radar is set up on road to catch
> speeders heading east. Driver heading west passes speed trap, stops a mile
> away and begins to flash lights at cars heading east. The result, is that
> cars heading east slow down. If flashing light driver caught, a ticket is
> issued. If safety and encouraging drivers to slow down are primary
> objectives, why is flasher ticketed for warning drivers? Fraternal order of
> police issued a statement demanding that the APP WAZE remove the alert for
> police activity ahead. Most states have a law that drivers must move over,
> if possible, when they encounter emergency vehicles on side of road. WAZE
> provides early warning and allows drivers enough time to safely do so, and
> to slow down. The alleged two priorities of safety Yet, police despise the
> early warning notice?
>
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 7:49:15 AM UTC-4, MJ wrote:
>>
>>
>> September 11, 2016
>>
>> *On This Speed Limit Business *by eric
>>
>> What are speed limits, exactly?
>>
>> I know … a number on a sign.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Exactly. *But why pay any attention to them?
>>
>> I mean, assuming there *isn’t* a cop around?
>>
>> They’re not much use as far as advisories about the maximum safe velocity
>> for a given road. If they were, then everyone (just about) wouldn’t be
>> driving *at least* that fast.
>>
>> Probably, they’d be driving slower.
>>
>> If speed limits meant anything substantive, that is.
>>
>> Like the redline on a tachometer, for example. That is a *real* limit.
>>
>> Most people do not run their engines at or even near redline for more
>> than brief moments. Because the redline *is* the fastest you can safely
>> spin the engine without risking engine damage.
>>
>> So they don’t do it.
>>
>> The idea that driving over the speed limit is risking anything (other
>> than a ticket) is ridiculous.
>>
>> If that were not the case, then most people wouldn’t “speed” as a matter
>> of routine – because most people aren’t reckless with their own lives or
>> the lives of others.
>>
>> The fact that speed limits are almost universally ignored (by cops, too)
>> says something about their merits.
>>
>> Prohibition comes to mind. Another absurd law that was respected
>> accordingly.
>>
>> But Prohibition went away.
>>
>> Speed limits are still with us.
>>
>> It’d be nice if they’d go away, like Prohibition.
>>
>> It would tolerable if they at least plausibly represented a speed*
>> faster* than most people on a given road normally drive.
>>
>> That is, in fact, how speed limits are*supposed* to be set. Such that
>> most drivers would *not* be “speeding.” The few who did could then at
>> least be characterized as driving faster than most other drivers and one
>> could then at least make the claim that *maybe* these people are driving
>> too fast.
>>
>> But that is not good for *revenue* – which is what speed limits are
>> really all about.
>>
>> By purposely setting limits so low such that nine out of ten drivers on
>> any given road are “speeding,” it makes it easier to catch “speeders.”
>> Which means more revenue via tickets issued for this *manufactured
>> offense*.
>>
>> So, speed limits have little, if anything, to do with “safety.”
>>
>> They are useless as far as informing drivers about reasonable speeds for
>> a given (and perhaps unfamiliar) road.
>>
>> They are not (for the most part) posted on the basis of traffic
>> engineering surveys, as they are supposed to be.
>>
>> They are arbitrary and typically under-posted, deliberately – in  order
>> to criminalize reasonable/safe driving so as to give police an excuse to
>> issue “citations” which just happen to be a major source of local
>> government income.
>>
>> When there is a profit motive underpinning a law – and when most
>> otherwise reasonable (and presumably sane) people routinely violate a law,
>> there is a problem with the law.
>>
>> And those who enforce it.
>>
>> Arguably, the entire concept is flawed because it assumes there is a
>> single “safe” speed for every driver. But each driver’s abilities vary. As
>> does the capability of the vehicle they’re driving. A one-size-fits-all
>> speed limit arbitrarily defines Driver A as a danger merely because he is
>> traveling faster than a number posted on a sign – even if his actual
>> *driving* can’t be faulted. And it envelopes Driver B – whose actual
>> driving *can* be faulted – in the aura of  legality (and “safety”)
>> merely because he is operating at or below the arbitrarily-set speed limit.
>>
>> It might be saner – and safer – to get rid of enforceable speed limits
>> altogether. Perhaps post advisory speeds – realistic speeds – as an aid to
>> drivers not familiar with a given stretch of road or curves up ahead. That
>> would be genuinely helpful as a well as safe.
>>
>> But then, it would reduce revenue, by taking away the excuse to pull over
>> people whose driving can’t be faulted but who did exceed a dumbed-down,
>> arbitrarily set, least-common-denominator number on a sign we’re supposed
>> to obey but which virtually no one does.
>>
>> http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/09/11/speed-limit-business/
>>
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to