Re: Cops Making Stuff Up


Alex Rodriguez wrote:

If the speed limits were properly set RD's would be unecessary. Also,
the airwaves are public and you are free to recieve the signals that
come to you.
In my experience, it makes no difference what the limits are. A
certain group of people will always go faster than the limit--they will
go as fast as they think they can get away with. They cover their
disain for the laws and general safety with holy platitudes. It boils
down to one thing: they want to go faster than everyone else, faster
than the law allows, and frequently faster than they should.

Sometimes there are other circumstances, but that's not the general
case.


When the police decided to bombard innocent drivers with
microwaves, there is no reason the driver should not be aware of that
situation. Also, no police radar provides target identification, just
a number that the operator needs to connect to an object. Because of
that it is prone to operator error in identification of the target.
So it is good to be aware of when you are being targeted in case they
screw up.
The "bombardment" is trivial in every respect. I would expect that
cellphone signals are stronger. No one cares. That's a red herring.
It is always an issue for the authorities to ensure that they get the
right person. Sometimes, but not often, mistakes are made.
I've only know of ONE time where the "target" was hit for speeding and
really was not. She also beat it in court. I'm sure it happens, but
it is not the general case by any means.

I drive all over the Phoenix metro area, and haven't run across a
single area where the limit, as posted, is lower than appropriate.

That's your opinion. What about all the other drivers? Do they
fell the same way? At least 85% of them?
You, like so many other poor driver,
A rash assumption. So many speeders in this ng claim to be a "good
driver" because they haven't had a wreck in upteen years. I also fit
that category. I don't hit people. I don't run them off the road. I
politely let them in so that traffic flows smoothly and safely. I wish
others would behave as well. Oh, and I am generally within the law.

seem to confuse the meaning of a speed limit. It is
not a recommended driving speed. It is the upper speed that can
safely be driven under ideal conditions. Too often the speed limit
is set for poor drivers under poor conditions.
Finally, you had it right!!! It is not recommended. It is the law.
SPEED LIMIT!!! Period.
There are laws I don't agree with aplenty, but I still have to follow
them. Period. I don't like the laws that sometimes say a person
driving the speed limit has to get out of the way of an arrogant, MFFY
speeder in the left lane. But I have to put up with it and follow it or
risk the penalties of having to be held to account. Sometimes,
following this decreases safety.

There is one section of freeway, though, that has a limit that is
almost universally ignored.

That's a sign the the speed limit is improperly set.
I might agree, maybe not. I DO agree that it should be enforced or
changed; pick one.

The limit goes from 65 to 55 in an area of
congestion--multiple freeways join, on/off ramps, etc. But virtually
no one slows down. It's sort of a come-to-prayer area; slowing down
would make the congestion worse, but the higher speeds (during the time
they are sustainable) are themselves inadviseable at best.

This is what happens when you have poorly set limits. When the limits
really need to be lower, drivers don't slow down because the limit was
stupidly set like all the others they encounter. Like the boy who cried
wolf.
Which is the same as saying that some drivers will go as fast as they
can get away with, posted limit be damned. NOt a good way to run a
roadway.

The point to draw is that I'm not necessarily railing against the
situation where EVERYone is speeding. I'm taking exception to that
percentage (it varies) that speeds by some great amount, while going
way faster than the general flow of traffic (like 75 or 80 in a 65
zone), and then tries to justify it by any handy argument. They are
just willful, arrogant violators who think they own the road and
everyone else should go home. They don't play well with others,
because they think the rules apply to everyone but them.


Again, if the intersection was properly designed and the timing on the light
set properly, red light cameras would be unecessary. Red light cameras are
just another source of revenue for politicians. You have to be very naive
to see it any other way.
I can't argue that some laws aren't written for revenue. Work against
them.
However, I support almost anything that accurately nabs red-light
runners. There is no excuse for deliberately running them--and
precious few for doing so accidentally. When it's yellow, prepare to
stop. When it's red, you'd better not enter. Dumb or not, it's
simple. And severely important for general safety. IF the
intersection is poorly designed, it is even more important to NOT run
the red light. Only a nut would choose to run a red light. They kill
people every day.
If the city coffers grow because some arrogant bonehead chooses to run
a red light, fine by me! If he learns his lesson, he won't be
contributing so heavily. If he doesn't, get his contributions up to a
certain limit, then yank his license. 'Course, yanking his license
won't hurt--he doesn't care about the law anyway, and will probably
still drive.

NOTE: I have real hatred toward those red-light companies that twiddled
with the timing of the lights, so as to increase violations. This is
why I will never support a fine-sharing agreement between any entity
and the enforcing agency.

---------------
Alex

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cops Making Stuff Up
    ... Because there are so many people so willing to break laws, ... What about all the other drivers? ... speeds. ... red light cameras would be unecessary. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Cops Making Stuff Up
    ... and I am generally within the law. ... is set for poor drivers under poor conditions. ... but the higher speeds (during the time ... red light cameras would be unecessary. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Off the bike - speeding cars shock.
    ... If those goals, "no collisions", and where that cannot be guaranteed then "lower closing speeds", can be achieved without cameras then so much the better. ... If our system can't safely accommodate "most drivers", ... We need to redesign the system, and this time we need to consider that the users are actually human beings, so we need to allow for the laws of human nature. ... We can no more get away with ignoring those laws inroad design than we can get away with ignoring the laws of gravity in, say, bridge design. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Cars, speed and entitlement
    ... if one revised the speed limits to reflect ... actual travel speeds? ... Drivers wouldn't drive significantly faster than they already do ... they're only "inattentive" in the presence of a RLC? ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Side Effects
    ... *single one* of the following list of side effects of speed cameras. ... Although it is not much talked about in road safety, ... Drivers' general attitude to driving is worsened. ... Side effects of lower vehicle speeds ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
Loading