I read that the feds are going to install cameras on the interstates to
collect fines from speeders. This is going to be a trend across the board
with fines, fees
Permits, you name it . on all levels of government
On Sep 17, 2016 9:43 AM, "Keith In Tampa" <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 aresupposed 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.

-- 
-- 
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