NJ did a two year test on stop-light cameras ... locals loved it, more
gravy, but amazingly the State gov't decided it was wrong and stopped it
... probably the only time my State did a good job since I moved here 22
years ago!!!

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ditto down here in Florida....In Florida, it's illicit to stop a vehicle
> for non-seat belt wearing; but "if" they stop you, and you're not wearing a
> seat belt, then the fine applies.  Fortunately I have no issue with this
> policy, and always wear a seat belt.
>
> I have mutual problems with the cameras, and they are quite controversial
> down here in Florida.  There have been some successful challenges to the
> whole "Cam-Ticket" policy, and the Constitutionality of the program.  Some
> communities have refused to "Re-Up" the programs, because they've got their
> proverbial asses handed to them in Court.
>
> I'm not sure how successful overall this progam will be, but if there's a
> way that local governments can get around the Constitutional Issues;  they
> will.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Brian Bednarek <bri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I know that here in NJ it's a money maker!!! They also advertise that
>> they are doing "Click-it or Ticket" programs for a week at a time and they
>> will ticket anyone without a seat-belt on ... same with the various DUI
>> stops all weekends where they find things other than just drunks driving!!!
>> We have our share of speed traps all over the highways!!!
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> brine
>> http://brineb.blogspot.com/
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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.
>



-- 
brine
http://brineb.blogspot.com/

-- 
-- 
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