• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge: Town's speeding cameras are '3 Card Monty' scam

justabubba said:
you are arguing that many motorists are too underskilled to drive at a high rate of speed

notice how that differs from my argument that the interstates are (often) designed to be driven at 100 mph
Click to expand...

I am just stating that big differences in speed are way more dangerous than speed alone. If everyone was able to drive at 200 mph in a system in an automated system in which computers regulated speed and inserting other cars at high speeds than speed would never be an issue because than this would not lead to dangerous situations.

Being designed for speed and driving at that speed are 2 different things. If the police needs to get to a dangerous situation or ambulances need to drive at high speeds than it would be a real disaster if the road would make this impossible, but police officers and ambulance drivers are trained to drive at such high speeds and have light and sound warning systems to warn other that they are coming at high speeds. It might be able to drive faster and even drive faster than 100mph but it does not mean that normal drivers should drive at speeds that high. It would be a different thing if there were 3 or 4 lanes in which cars would only be allowed to drive on those lanes if they were driving 90 miles or more. It should also be illegal to drive on that lane at speeds under 90.
 
Peter King said:
I am just stating that big differences in speed are way more dangerous than speed alone. If everyone was able to drive at 200 mph in a system in an automated system in which computers regulated speed and inserting other cars at high speeds than speed would never be an issue because than this would not lead to dangerous situations.

Being designed for speed and driving at that speed are 2 different things. If the police needs to get to a dangerous situation or ambulances need to drive at high speeds than it would be a real disaster if the road would make this impossible, but police officers and ambulance drivers are trained to drive at such high speeds and have light and sound warning systems to warn other that they are coming at high speeds. It might be able to drive faster and even drive faster than 100mph but it does not mean that normal drivers should drive at speeds that high. It would be a different thing if there were 3 or 4 lanes in which cars would only be allowed to drive on those lanes if they were driving 90 miles or more. It should also be illegal to drive on that lane at speeds under 90.
Click to expand...


and i don't disagree with that
if we issued drivers licenses in the deliberate manner we issue pilots licenses, much of the roadway problem would disappear ... and not just because there would be very few licensed drivers
 
AmericanWoman76 said:
It's an honesty issue. the radar are set by a company that makes money every time a person is caught speeding, and no one but that company ever tests the machines to make sure they're accurate. It's very easy to reset the radar to give a false reading of higher than the actual speed of the vehicle, and the accused person is sent the fine immediately without even having a way of finding out the name of the person who calibrated the radar, without ever being allowed to send their own experts to test the radar to make sure it's giving an accurate reading. As honesty issues go, when 3,000 people say "no i wasn't speeding" and anonymous (who makes money every time a person is accused of speeding) says "yes you were" It is wildly unlikely that 3,000 people were lying and anonymous was telling the truth.
Click to expand...

I received a refund on a traffic light camera from a citation I received 5 years ago. Some kind of judgement for this issue. I have since learned that in cities where contractors are collecting the fines, you can basically ignore them.
 
justabubba said:
and i don't disagree with that
if we issued drivers licenses in the deliberate manner we issue pilots licenses, much of the roadway problem would disappear ... and not just because there would be very few licensed drivers
Click to expand...

I see lots of idiots driving on a weekly basis. I live in a part of the Netherlands that is only a few dozens of miles wide and lies in between Belgium and Germany. A lot of Belgian and German drivers use out Dutch roads as an extended piece of the autobahn because the odds of Dutch police catching them before they cross the border into either Belgium or Germany is small to non-existent.
 
Peter King said:
I see lots of idiots driving on a weekly basis. I live in a part of the Netherlands that is only a few dozens of miles wide and lies in between Belgium and Germany. A lot of Belgian and German drivers use out Dutch roads as an extended piece of the autobahn because the odds of Dutch police catching them before they cross the border into either Belgium or Germany is small to non-existent.
Click to expand...

out should be our :3oops:
 
Fenton said:
I and many others just refused to pay the fines.
Click to expand...

My wife and I were cited a few times when we moved into a neighborhood that had them. We never paid any of them, even after their threats with turning the tickets over to a collection agency. We were like, so what, we never signed a contract with you to provide a good or service to us and then didn't pay for it, the collection agency has nothing to collect from us.

I went in a few weeks ago to register a used vehicle at my DMV. If I had an enforceable ticket, it would have flagged and I might well have had my license seized then and there. At the very least I am sure I would not have been able to register the vehicle until the matter was settled.

Nothing whatsoever was mentioned to me. I paid the fees and walked out with the tag.
 
ChuckBerry said:
My wife and I were cited a few times when we moved into a neighborhood that had them. We never paid any of them, even after their threats with turning the tickets over to a collection agency. We were like, so what, we never signed a contract with you to provide a good or service to us and then didn't pay for it, the collection agency has nothing to collect from us.

I went in a few weeks ago to register a used vehicle at my DMV. If I had an enforceable ticket, it would have flagged and I might well have had my license seized then and there. At the very least I am sure I would not have been able to register the vehicle until the matter was settled.

Nothing whatsoever was mentioned to me. I paid the fees and walked out with the tag.
Click to expand...
Interesting. That's the big threat here... you'll be sent to a collection company and you won't be able to renew your vehicle registration. The collection thing I don't give a rat's arse about, but the registration thing is real. I'm in a different state, so I wonder if it's the same here as well.
 
Henry David said:
Several years ago I became involved on the local level with city government over the issue of RLC. The city was proposing to put them in. I grew up in this town and know several of the commissioners. I was working with the city PD on what was proposed.

It turns out, the system is driven by the company, in this case ATS. The politicians are lobbied by the company. The city just north of us was also being lobbied. Anyway, I was briefed by 2 different police officers in charge of the program that was being proposed to the city.

In terms of generating revenue in the ideal design configuration, the system is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's a sure thing. Like the house in a gambling place, the system is rigged in favor of making tons of money on such a system. It is a statistical certainty that a certain number of people will be caught in the box on any given day. I think I was told the ideal situation--heavy traffic and good intersection, could generate 5 offenses an hour. Very lucrative.

So we fought the proposal and eventually won. Once people understood what was happening they were against it. Also, state government changed the rules, and it became not nearly as lucrative, so the city abandoned the plan. ATS guys were mad...
Click to expand...
They're always portrayed in safety terms. And while that isn't entirely untrue, it's an almost impossible thing to argue against. Nobody in their right mind is going to say, "I'm against safety", and those opposed to the lack of due process, etc., are portrayed as "just wanting to speed/run red lights with impunity". :roll: Spare me.

I'd believe the safety angle more easily if my local people didn't get so clearly giddy when the money numbers are talked about. Seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom