Re: Heads-up: Possible Televisual Recovery

On 2007-09-09, Robert Uhl <eadmund42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay Blanc <j@xxxxxxxx> writes:

The effect of this is that it enforces behaviour that it's okay to
speed, just not in the areas where they might catch you.

It _is_ okay to speed. A driver should drive at a safe speed, period.
If that speed is higher than the legal limit, so be it. If it's _lower_
than the legal limit, so be it.

Cue the story: I was travelling south down Murrumbeena Road one day.
Posted speed limit: 60 kph.

That day, the rain was pouring down. And when I say pouring, I mean just
that. I'm convinced (peering through the hazy mists of approximately ten
years now) that if you had put out a bucket, it would have been full in
a matter of seconds, the rain was that heavy.

I was doing somewhere around 10-20 kph. So was everybody else around me.
Traction was poor, visibility was atrocious, doing anything faster would
have been suicide. Yet no speed camera would have picked up any speed
violations had somebody been doing 60 kph, even though they *would* have
wrapped themselves around a lamppost at the first curve in the road.

Blanket, automatic enforcement is only appropriate on some occasions,
and it's the exceptions that catch people's attention - and that's why
so many people are against speed cameras as "revenue raising".

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
.