 |
|
|
previous topic :: next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pjc
Since 06 Mar 2005
649 Posts
Addicted
|
 Sat Nov 14, 09 8:53 pm |
 |
|
| always nice to see scofflaws using technology to break the laws and endanger their fellow citizens. |
|
|
bulae99
Since 12 Jul 2006
1691 Posts
I give out bad advice.
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 6:19 am LOL, hey thanks GeneK for the call out |
|
|
What kind of work do you does?
_________________
Hey, I'm being hahahahahrassed! |
|
|
jackZ
Since 13 Apr 2008
355 Posts
Devon Alberta ca.
Obsessed
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 6:54 am Radar |
|
|
We had an interesting event happen in Edmonton a few years ago when they first started Raping people with the photo radar .
Someone decided to park a van with the camera under an overpass , hiding in the dip . Well some pissed persons plucked a newspaper vending machine and tossed it over the side of the overpass right on top of the van . Can you imagine being bored to death sitting in that van when the thing hit !? Our police service wanted to hang the people responsible , of course .
I guess they just wanted to know what their speeding ticket money was going to be used for .
jack
Oh yes there are those that believe it's for safety . Get real . Driver attitude and training would make a difference . These start long before you get behind the wheel of a car .
Until then it's just a cash cow and nothing more . just my layman opinion . |
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 10:02 am |
|
|
| pjc wrote: | | always nice to see scofflaws using technology to break the laws and endanger their fellow citizens. |
no shit 
Do like they do in Denmark? the fine is based on your income
top fine last I heard was $87K U.S.
Start using the web to send fines for you hurry boys
and let the police catch the dudes stealing yer kites. 
Germany has a pic of you licence plate, your face and the infraction ,I think it was a $1000 U.S. for driving in the left lane
get em in the mail 
just like CA. |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 11:05 am |
|
|
| pjc wrote: | | always nice to see scofflaws using technology to break the laws and endanger their fellow citizens. |
Here's the deal: traffic law enforcement in this country has absolutely ZERO to do with safety. It has everything to do with revenue generation. Every study has shown that red light cameras and speed camera vans increase the accident rate. And yet they still put in more. Why? because they generate revenue. Speed traps rarely catch the dangerous speeders, rather they mostly catch motorists who are safely driving at the safe and reasonable speed for that stretch of road.
I am a big supporter of our police, and am honored to number several as my friends. I gave to police charities long before my friends told me I needed to put those stars in my window.
Traffic engineers have long known that the safest speed limit for a given stretch of road is the speed that the majority of drivers naturally tend to drive there. Setting an artificially low limit, to increase revenue from speeding tickets, tends to increase the accident rate on that road. Speed is not as dangerous as speed differential. If most people drive 75 mph, driving at 60 is just as dangerous as driving 90. Artificially low speed limits increase the speed differential and increase the accident rate. Oregon's 65 mph limit is an artificial limit designed to increase revenues at the cost of life and limb.
Other western states have 75 mph limits or higher, and similar stretches of road have been shown to have lower accident rates than their Oregon counterparts.
I'm not condoning driving 100 mph on I84. But getting a ticket for doing 75, when that's the typical speed east of Portland, is not reasonable.
The biggest flaw with our traffic laws is that the municipality that writes the ticket gets to keep the money. If all the revenue generated by minor speed infractions went into an independent state fund designed to improve traffic safety, I'd get rid of my radar detector. As long as speed laws are written only with an eye to raising funds and with complete disregard for safety, I will practice civil disobedience. |
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 11:49 am |
|
|
| Nak wrote: | | pjc wrote: | | always nice to see scofflaws using technology to break the laws and endanger their fellow citizens. |
Here's the deal: traffic law enforcement in this country has absolutely ZERO to do with safety. It has everything to do with revenue generation. Every study has shown that red light cameras and speed camera vans increase the accident rate. And yet they still put in more. Why? because they generate revenue. Speed traps rarely catch the dangerous speeders, rather they mostly catch motorists who are safely driving at the safe and reasonable speed for that stretch of road.
I am a big supporter of our police, and am honored to number several as my friends. I gave to police charities long before my friends told me I needed to put those stars in my window.
Traffic engineers have long known that the safest speed limit for a given stretch of road is the speed that the majority of drivers naturally tend to drive there. Setting an artificially low limit, to increase revenue from speeding tickets, tends to increase the accident rate on that road. Speed is not as dangerous as speed differential. If most people drive 75 mph, driving at 60 is just as dangerous as driving 90. Artificially low speed limits increase the speed differential and increase the accident rate. Oregon's 65 mph limit is an artificial limit designed to increase revenues at the cost of life and limb.
Other western states have 75 mph limits or higher, and similar stretches of road have been shown to have lower accident rates than their Oregon counterparts.
I'm not condoning driving 100 mph on I84. But getting a ticket for doing 75, when that's the typical speed east of Portland, is not reasonable.
The biggest flaw with our traffic laws is that the municipality that writes the ticket gets to keep the money. If all the revenue generated by minor speed infractions went into an independent state fund designed to improve traffic safety, I'd get rid of my radar detector. As long as speed laws are written only with an eye to raising funds and with complete disregard for safety, I will practice civil disobedience. |
rationalizations ??
I would seriously doubt that the amount of tickets written comes even close to putting cops on the beat
and as long as people break the law the money to police them will be used for that
instead of catching criminals
I speed all the time if you consider around ten over speeding (when clear much faster)
But being so unaware as to get pinched is what they are really looking for
kinda of the same as a violation of the basic rule, VBR.
Just blissfully thinking about the (sea state,wind/texting/whatever ) blasting along in your super quiet super car listening to yer tunes ,not paying any attention to the rest of us.
As a former professional driver and a rv driver (the top 2 safest drivers on the road) I can assure you most are not paying attention to thier driving.
If you don't like it you can drive in Mexico where most anything goes,,
or change the laws here ,
Otherwise you are wasting law enforcements valuable time.
If you are talking about western states like Montana,
I would bet more run into wildlife than people ,
I'm old enough to remember when it was legal to drink and drive in Oregon ,My neighbor an alky said "what's it coming to when you can't go for a sunday drive and drink a beer"
fine in the 50's mostly deer on the road ,but not now ,too many folks taking driving for granted and not paying attention |
|
|
pjc
Since 06 Mar 2005
649 Posts
Addicted
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 12:34 pm |
|
|
some nice "civil disobedience" you got going on there.  keep on speeding for freedom. i guess now that apartheid is over, cleaning up these repressive traffic laws is the next big issue.
yeah that whole business they mentioned in high school about kinetic energy being proportional to the square of the speed was just another part of the revenue generating conspiracy. |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 1:43 pm |
|
|
| pjc wrote: |
yeah that whole business they mentioned in high school about kinetic energy being proportional to the square of the speed was just another part of the revenue generating conspiracy. |
Certainly higher speeds mean higher energy. But anything above 45 is going to kill you just as dead as 75 or 80. The best way to save lives is to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. Of course it's possible to lower the speed limits to the point that fatalities would be nil, assuming that everyone would drive at the new 15 mph limit. Would you?
The theory that kinetic energy is the primary causative factor in accidents was laid to rest long ago. As Blowhard correctly points out, inattention is far more deadly. During the era of the national 55 mph limit, deaths on rural roads went up, especially in the West and Midwest. Driving for long stretches at 55 mph tends to have a hypnotic effect on most people. The rate of information coming into the brain at that speed is not sufficient to keep the brain engaged. Think of it this way: Sit in a car and stare at a wheat field while someone gently rocks the car. After a short time your brain will start to disengage due to lack of stimulation. After an hour, you'll probably have a difficult time staying awake. Starting to drive slowly won't increase the stimulation much. (I spent a lot of time driving across the Midwest, and I'm here to tell you 55 isn't much better.) At 65 or 70 The hypnotic effect is largely eliminated. So yes, if you're in a wreck it's better to have started slower. Duh. But it's better yet never to get into the wreck at all, especially if you're going faster than 15 mph.
There's a town in Southeastern Oregon. (Google it.) It's made many lists as one of the worst speed traps in the country. They get you as you leave town, where the speed limit increases from 25 to 60. You're well clear of town, in the country. You see the 60 mph sign. You don't see the well hidden cruiser. If you accelerate to 26 10 feet prior to the 60 mph sign, you get a ticket. Do you really think they do that for any reason other than revenue??? It's a well known fact that many municipalities and states make a lot of money off of speeding tickets, not a theory of any kind. Why do you suppose that Beaverton & Portland continue to invest in speed and light cameras when it has been conclusively shown that the accident rate increases after their installation?
Anyway, I've said enough on the subject. I will continue to maintain to anyone that 75 through the Gorge is reasonable and prudent. It's the speed most people are driving. Those driving at 60 are causing more speed related accidents than those driving 75. (The cops I've talked to agree with that statement BTW... ) I don't think it's right to get a ticket for driving at a reasonable and prudent speed. So I will continue to advocate the use of systems like Trapster. |
|
|
pjc
Since 06 Mar 2005
649 Posts
Addicted
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 2:17 pm |
|
|
Wow, being hypnotized by your car sounds heavy.
All this time, I thought speeders were just guaging their speed by thinking "the speed limit is X - I'll just drive 10-20 mph over that, so if I get caught as least they won't haul my ass straight to jail".
Turns out they were naturally seeking the proper speed to avoid being hypnotized. How thoughtful.
My problem is, the route to the beach is 50 mph the whole way. Man I've been getting hypnotized the whole last 5 years, and I didn't even know it. It probably does explain some things about the way I kite though.... |
|
|
jdk
Since 21 Dec 2005
333 Posts
Obsessed
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 2:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | anyone that 75 through the Gorge is reasonable and prudent. It's the speed most people are driving. Those driving at 60 are causing more speed related accidents than those driving 75 |
i think the assumption here is that people driving 75 have good tires, brakes, steering, etc.. and that they are paying attention to the road. unfortunately i don't think that's the case with the majority of the people driving around
if people are on I84 driving 60 in the left lane then yeah, they are asking for trouble |
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 2:31 pm |
|
|
| Nak wrote: | | pjc wrote: |
yeah that whole business they mentioned in high school about kinetic energy being proportional to the square of the speed was just another part of the revenue generating conspiracy. |
Certainly higher speeds mean higher energy. But anything above 45 is going to kill you just as dead as 75 or 80. The best way to save lives is to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. Of course it's possible to lower the speed limits to the point that fatalities would be nil, assuming that everyone would drive at the new 15 mph limit. Would you?
The theory that kinetic energy is the primary causative factor in accidents was laid to rest long ago. As Blowhard correctly points out, inattention is far more deadly. During the era of the national 55 mph limit, deaths on rural roads went up, especially in the West and Midwest. Driving for long stretches at 55 mph tends to have a hypnotic effect on most people. The rate of information coming into the brain at that speed is not sufficient to keep the brain engaged. Think of it this way: Sit in a car and stare at a wheat field while someone gently rocks the car. After a short time your brain will start to disengage due to lack of stimulation. After an hour, you'll probably have a difficult time staying awake. Starting to drive slowly won't increase the stimulation much. (I spent a lot of time driving across the Midwest, and I'm here to tell you 55 isn't much better.) At 65 or 70 The hypnotic effect is largely eliminated. So yes, if you're in a wreck it's better to have started slower. Duh. But it's better yet never to get into the wreck at all, especially if you're going faster than 15 mph.
There's a town in Southeastern Oregon. (Google it.) It's made many lists as one of the worst speed traps in the country. They get you as you leave town, where the speed limit increases from 25 to 60. You're well clear of town, in the country. You see the 60 mph sign. You don't see the well hidden cruiser. If you accelerate to 26 10 feet prior to the 60 mph sign, you get a ticket. Do you really think they do that for any reason other than revenue??? It's a well known fact that many municipalities and states make a lot of money off of speeding tickets, not a theory of any kind. Why do you suppose that Beaverton & Portland continue to invest in speed and light cameras when it has been conclusively shown that the accident rate increases after their installation?
Anyway, I've said enough on the subject. I will continue to maintain to anyone that 75 through the Gorge is reasonable and prudent. It's the speed most people are driving. Those driving at 60 are causing more speed related accidents than those driving 75. (The cops I've talked to agree with that statement BTW... ) I don't think it's right to get a ticket for driving at a reasonable and prudent speed. So I will continue to advocate the use of systems like Trapster. |
as far as certain commuinities doing things certain ways of course all manner of shit happens ,thankfully most still follow the law
I guess it's a good thing us pilots are superior
problem lies in that so many are thinking they are superior
while in fact they are just average
you breed a nation of worker bees
droning back and forth ,and then throw in a couple top gunners to show them what they are missing and see what happens
pretty soon I would imagine every one is a top gunner
just like left lane drivers are now.
Do you question the F.A.A. and all the guidelines they follow?(and then do what you want anyway!)
maybe a little shortcut on approach?
We are a country of laws ,
instead of deals made with individuals (as in Mexico)
despite your opinion.
My rule is try not to break too many laws while your thinking of other things
or you might get caught .
My proposal is that you get a rating on your licence for you capabilities and a rating for your cars capabilities then you can rip as fast as you are authorized to.
Until then it will be just like it ever was
everyone going forward only as fast as the slowest person can comprehend |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 2:46 pm |
|
|
Different roads, different speeds. Big difference between 100 miles of straight road with nothing but wheat fields to look at and a scenic, windy road to the coast.
It's called the 85th percentile. The majority of drivers on a particular stretch of road will tend to drive at reasonably safe speed. There is a direct correlation between speed variance and accident rates. Make the speed limit too slow, and accident rates increase because of the variance in speed between the drivers following the speed limit and the majority of drivers. Make it too fast and you get variance and excessive speed. Traffic engineers have settled on the 85th percentile as the speed limit which results in the fewest accidents on any given stretch of road. The 85th percentile is the speed that 85% of the drivers maintain.
This isn't myth, and it isn't new. There are some pretty smart people who make their living studying traffic & how to make our roads safer. Lots of studies have been done. They have a lot of data and have done a great job putting it all together. Of course, we could just ignore them and decide that the three minutes worth of thought we put into it is much more valuable. Perhaps that's what certain politicians are thinking when they ignore the traffic engineers recommendation. I'm sure they aren't influenced by the revenue stream at all. |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 3:02 pm |
|
|
| blowhard wrote: | | Do you question the F.A.A. and all the guidelines they follow? |
The rules that will end up with dead passengers? Absolutely. There are certain rules that the FAA has that would end up with more than a few crashes were airline pilots to follow them universally. Of course, I follow every one of those rules so this is just hypothetical. I will not speak of the rule here, other than to say it has seen some attention lately. Hypothetically, the only way to keep your passengers safe is to break this particular rule. Just about all airline pilots break this rule, because keeping our passengers safe comes first. Hypothetically. The idiots who don't break this rule are the ones who end up in the news. There have been more than a few fatalities because of this rule. That's not hypothetical.
Why isn't this rule changed? EVERY NASA study shows that it should be changed. Not revenue here. The FAA doesn't want to face the criticism from the uninformed public that would come. They know that most pilots are ignoring the rule anyway.
I firmly believe that rule should be changed. As well as any rule, or traffic law, that ignores the recommendations of the experts. Laws that make our life safer should be based on science, not "well, I don't like that even though I haven't really studied it" or "what a great way to get more revenue".
BTW, I know I should write "FAR" and not "rule". I just wanted everyone else to understand... |
|
|
pjc
Since 06 Mar 2005
649 Posts
Addicted
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 3:22 pm |
|
|
| this is the rule about checking your laptop while flying? (another hypnosis prevention thing, right?) |
|
|
blowhard
Since 26 Dec 2005
2027 Posts
Windward
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 3:27 pm |
|
|
Guidelines are what FAR are
and yes in the event of safety break the rule, save lives or not break it and die
(I have taken a shortcut on final btw  )
Just as our own laws state in Oregon
It used to be Violation of the basic rule
which is the safe and prudent for the conditions ,which is a matter of opinion at best
Back in the 70's they changed the freeway speed to get better fuel economy
so they couldn't get you for vbr ,then it was excessive fuel consumption.
But now the old law of impeding more than 4 vehicles is ignored
and everyone is a faster mofo driving in the left lane which also is illeagle
and not enforced
so breaking the laws is a social thing
it's the police leading the social charge
but what do we expect?(politicos don't have the cojones)
One month they are all layed off, the next all working overtime.
I'm glad you added how hypothetical this all is
I hate occluded fronts 
After being in the country for a few years I hate tailgaters and dudes that drive like me 
but I like civility on the road and criminals apprehended |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 3:37 pm |
|
|
| pjc wrote: | | this is the rule about checking your laptop while flying? (another hypnosis prevention thing, right?) |
No. And they weren't looking at their laptops. There isn't one pilot I've spoken to that believes that. |
|
|
Nak
Since 19 May 2005
4305 Posts
Camas
Site Lackey
CGKA Member
|
| Sun Nov 15, 09 3:44 pm |
|
|
| blowhard wrote: |
and yes in the event of safety break the rule, save lives or not break it and die
(I have taken a shortcut on final btw )
|
Not quite that kind of rule. Over a beer some day.
Not to be uppity, but no, I've never taken a shortcut on an approach. Hell, I get pissed at myself if I'm more than a knot or so off airspeed. When I've got passengers, I'm an asshole perfectionist. Of course, back in the day flying USAF jets... Hell, once they had our backup lined up behind us on the runway. It was expected we'd crash, but the fireball might break the fog up enough for them to get off. Wartime rules... |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
