Speed cameras to be implemented and red light cameras to be removed

On 10/17/2013 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police
are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your
money.

I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know
several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my
friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to
them.

There's a big difference between cops and traffic cops. I've run into a
few traffic cops who were polite and professional and even if I did get
a ticket from them it didn't **** be off as they seemed to be decent
sorts. I've run into far more who seemed to think traffic enforcement
was a game, and being very rude and condescending and sometimes even
just simply making stuff up (e.g. stating that he paced me at a faster
speed than I was going, and I could see that he never paced me as I saw
him gaining on me from a long distance away) as if the whole idea was
simply to write as many tickets as possible, not actually to pick out
unsafe drivers and try to settle them down and correct undesirable behavior.

As for the legislators, they may or may not be the real problem. The
ones you know may be good people, but even so, if they are in a position
where they can make decisions about cameras, they're probably being
lobbied by companies like ATS and Redflex, and also are getting a lot of
their safety policy suggestions from biased groups like the IIHS.
Sadly, that's the *best* case scenario, because it means that if they
haven't formed a strong opinion yet, they might still be open to an
opposing point of view - which again is why the NMA is so vitally important.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 10/17/2013 07:08 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:36:13
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police
are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your
money.

I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know
several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my
friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to
them.

There's a big difference between cops and traffic cops. I've run into a
few traffic cops who were polite and professional and even if I did get
a ticket from them it didn't **** be off as they seemed to be decent
sorts. I've run into far more who seemed to think traffic enforcement
was a game, and being very rude and condescending and sometimes even
just simply making stuff up (e.g. stating that he paced me at a faster
speed than I was going, and I could see that he never paced me as I saw
him gaining on me from a long distance away) as if the whole idea was
simply to write as many tickets as possible, not actually to pick out
unsafe drivers and try to settle them down and correct undesirable behavior.

As for the legislators, they may or may not be the real problem. The
ones you know may be good people, but even so, if they are in a position
where they can make decisions about cameras, they're probably being
lobbied by companies like ATS and Redflex, and also are getting a lot of
their safety policy suggestions from biased groups like the IIHS.
Sadly, that's the *best* case scenario, because it means that if they
haven't formed a strong opinion yet, they might still be open to an
opposing point of view - which again is why the NMA is so vitally important.

The moton lobby has WAY more influence than it deserves, and a lot
more than the groups you describe as biased.

Motorists have more political clout than Redflex, ATS, or the IIHS?
Simply not true. Motorists have almost no clout whatsoever. Any time
someone dares to speak up about a real issue, they're inevitably shouted
down with accusations of being anti-safety (much like this thread,
actually.)

You are making a great case right here why the moton lobby should be
ignored, with the ranting about victimisation, while completely
ignoring the real victims - the thousands each year killed, maimed and
bereaved by irresponsible motorists.

You're ignoring facts and statistics and asserting the fallacy that I'm
arguing for making our roads less safe. I am not - I am arguing for
making them *MORE* safe.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:19:18 PM UTC-7, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/17/2013 06:59 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

... many civilised countries are LOWERING speed limits.
And enforcing them.

Those countries aren't civilised then, they're anti-progress.

You're either naive, or trolling.

snip

On 10/18/2013 9:04 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:19:18 PM UTC-7, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 10/17/2013 06:59 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip

... many civilised countries are LOWERING speed limits.
And enforcing them.

Those countries aren't civilised then, they're anti-progress.

You're either naive, or trolling.

LOL, what's needed is to have appropriate speed limits, and be able to
vary them based on conditions.

I recall the Florida Turnpike where the speed limit signs said "70,
conditions permitting." In the pouring rain 70 was too fast. Got my
first speeding ticket on that road when the speed limit was lowered to
55MPH, which was rather ridiculous. I recall reading an article about
the 55MPH speed limit and they said that they really should have made it
50MPH if the goal was to reduce fuel consumption because 50MPH was so
low that it would have been lifted immediately after the alleged oil
embargo was over. But 55MPH was just high enough that it stuck because a
lot of interstate highways were only 60MPH beforehand.

It's interesting that fatality rates don't necessarily go up as speed
limits increase but there's so many different factors that it's not
possible to say if the higher speed limits contribute to the lower
fatality rates, but it's logical because a trip that takes a shorter
amount of time means that the driver is going to be more alert and less
tired.

BTW, during the alleged gasoline shortage, it was interesting that while
the name brand gas stations often had no gasoline to sell, the
independent stations always had gasoline, and had long lines. But the
independent stations bought their gasoline from the refineries owned by
the major oil companies. I lived in South Florid at the time, where all
the refineries were at Port Everglades (where they still are). The good
part was that since the independent stations with gasoline were near my
high school I was tasked with getting fuel early in the morning which
meant I could drive to school rather than take the bus.

On 10/18/2013 03:46 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:22:36
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 07:08 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:36:13
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police
are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your
money.

I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know
several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my
friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to
them.

There's a big difference between cops and traffic cops. I've run into a
few traffic cops who were polite and professional and even if I did get
a ticket from them it didn't **** be off as they seemed to be decent
sorts. I've run into far more who seemed to think traffic enforcement
was a game, and being very rude and condescending and sometimes even
just simply making stuff up (e.g. stating that he paced me at a faster
speed than I was going, and I could see that he never paced me as I saw
him gaining on me from a long distance away) as if the whole idea was
simply to write as many tickets as possible, not actually to pick out
unsafe drivers and try to settle them down and correct undesirable behavior.

As for the legislators, they may or may not be the real problem. The
ones you know may be good people, but even so, if they are in a position
where they can make decisions about cameras, they're probably being
lobbied by companies like ATS and Redflex, and also are getting a lot of
their safety policy suggestions from biased groups like the IIHS.
Sadly, that's the *best* case scenario, because it means that if they
haven't formed a strong opinion yet, they might still be open to an
opposing point of view - which again is why the NMA is so vitally important.

The moton lobby has WAY more influence than it deserves, and a lot
more than the groups you describe as biased.

Motorists have more political clout than Redflex, ATS, or the IIHS?
Simply not true. Motorists have almost no clout whatsoever. Any time
someone dares to speak up about a real issue, they're inevitably shouted
down with accusations of being anti-safety (much like this thread,
actually.)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

What freaking planet are you on?
Motor manufacturers spend an absolute fortune on lobbying - far beyond
any resources of those who seek to limit their influence.
You think they spend that money for fun, and without any results?
Then throw in the oil industry, which sings from the same songsheet.

The "motor industry" has their own best interests at heart, not the
interests of the motorist. You can "thank" them (mostly General Motors)
for such brilliant acts as pressuring NHTSA to allow overly bright,
glaring high beam DRLs against the better judgement of pretty much
everyone who knew what they were talking about. Why? Because they
could advertise the DRLs as a "safety feature" and yet implement them
cheaply (by running two halogen high beam bulbs in series for the DRL
function) rather than designing a better system that might provide a
safety advantage but might cost a little more.

Yet again, "safety" is used to sell something that does nothing to
actually improve safety.

The "motor industry" wants to sell more new motor vehicles. The oil
industry wants to maximize its profits either by selling more oil or
increasing its margins on the oil that it sells. Neither one of those
interests is necessarily aligned with the interest of the average
motorist. They certainly don't care about me, because I tend to buy my
vehicles used, keep them for 5-10 years, and I actually care about fuel
usage - in other words, the type of customer they really don't want.
(and as I do tend to keep my vehicles long term, I have an incentive to
not want my vehicle to be wrecked into, as that would mean that I'd have
to go shopping for a new one before I'd budgeted to do so.)


You are making a great case right here why the moton lobby should be
ignored, with the ranting about victimisation, while completely
ignoring the real victims - the thousands each year killed, maimed and
bereaved by irresponsible motorists.

You're ignoring facts and statistics and asserting the fallacy that I'm
arguing for making our roads less safe. I am not - I am arguing for
making them *MORE* safe.

But none of your ideas would do so.
Still, you are making a great case for how deluded the motoring nuts
are, so keep it up!
It can only do good for the motons to be seen for what they are -
irrational lunatics.

There's no point in talking to you if you can't be bothered to actually
read the research on the subject. If you had, you would realize that
I'm actually right, and not throwing out ad hominem insults because you
don't have a valid argument.

The problem with research and statistics is that the results may not
align with intuition and "common sense," unfortunately some people will
never let go of their preconceived notions.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:53:42 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 03:46 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:22:36
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 07:08 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:36:13
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police
are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your
money.

I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know
several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my
friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to
them.

There's a big difference between cops and traffic cops. I've run into a
few traffic cops who were polite and professional and even if I did get
a ticket from them it didn't **** be off as they seemed to be decent
sorts. I've run into far more who seemed to think traffic enforcement
was a game, and being very rude and condescending and sometimes even
just simply making stuff up (e.g. stating that he paced me at a faster
speed than I was going, and I could see that he never paced me as I saw
him gaining on me from a long distance away) as if the whole idea was
simply to write as many tickets as possible, not actually to pick out
unsafe drivers and try to settle them down and correct undesirable behavior.

As for the legislators, they may or may not be the real problem. The
ones you know may be good people, but even so, if they are in a position
where they can make decisions about cameras, they're probably being
lobbied by companies like ATS and Redflex, and also are getting a lot of
their safety policy suggestions from biased groups like the IIHS.
Sadly, that's the *best* case scenario, because it means that if they
haven't formed a strong opinion yet, they might still be open to an
opposing point of view - which again is why the NMA is so vitally important.

The moton lobby has WAY more influence than it deserves, and a lot
more than the groups you describe as biased.

Motorists have more political clout than Redflex, ATS, or the IIHS?
Simply not true. Motorists have almost no clout whatsoever. Any time
someone dares to speak up about a real issue, they're inevitably shouted
down with accusations of being anti-safety (much like this thread,
actually.)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

What freaking planet are you on?
Motor manufacturers spend an absolute fortune on lobbying - far beyond
any resources of those who seek to limit their influence.
You think they spend that money for fun, and without any results?
Then throw in the oil industry, which sings from the same songsheet.

The "motor industry" has their own best interests at heart, not the
interests of the motorist. You can "thank" them (mostly General Motors)
for such brilliant acts as pressuring NHTSA to allow overly bright,
glaring high beam DRLs against the better judgement of pretty much
everyone who knew what they were talking about. Why? Because they
could advertise the DRLs as a "safety feature" and yet implement them
cheaply (by running two halogen high beam bulbs in series for the DRL
function) rather than designing a better system that might provide a
safety advantage but might cost a little more.

Yet again, "safety" is used to sell something that does nothing to
actually improve safety.

The "motor industry" wants to sell more new motor vehicles. The oil
industry wants to maximize its profits either by selling more oil or
increasing its margins on the oil that it sells. Neither one of those
interests is necessarily aligned with the interest of the average
motorist. They certainly don't care about me, because I tend to buy my
vehicles used, keep them for 5-10 years, and I actually care about fuel
usage - in other words, the type of customer they really don't want.
(and as I do tend to keep my vehicles long term, I have an incentive to
not want my vehicle to be wrecked into, as that would mean that I'd have
to go shopping for a new one before I'd budgeted to do so.)

I can only assume that you are either very young and inexperienced or
have lead a very protected existence. Of course the car industry and
the oil businesses want to increase their sales and profits....... You
seem to consider this an amazing desire although they share this with
every other business on the face of the earth.

Or would you care to describe a series of businesses that don't want
to increase sales and profits.

--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. writes:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:53:42 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

On 10/18/2013 03:46 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:22:36
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 07:08 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Nate Nagel considered Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:36:13
-0400 the perfect time to write:

On 10/17/2013 12:06 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, Nate Nagel wrote:

Believe me, your legislators, the camera companies, and the police
are all most emphatically NOT your friends. They just want your
money.

I don't know anyone working for a camera company. But I do know
several legislators and quite a few cops. They actually are my
friends. And none of them have the evil motives you attribute to
them.

There's a big difference between cops and traffic cops. I've run into a
few traffic cops who were polite and professional and even if I did get
a ticket from them it didn't **** be off as they seemed to be decent
sorts. I've run into far more who seemed to think traffic enforcement
was a game, and being very rude and condescending and sometimes even
just simply making stuff up (e.g. stating that he paced me at a faster
speed than I was going, and I could see that he never paced me as I saw
him gaining on me from a long distance away) as if the whole idea was
simply to write as many tickets as possible, not actually to pick out
unsafe drivers and try to settle them down and correct undesirable behavior.

As for the legislators, they may or may not be the real problem. The
ones you know may be good people, but even so, if they are in a position
where they can make decisions about cameras, they're probably being
lobbied by companies like ATS and Redflex, and also are getting a lot of
their safety policy suggestions from biased groups like the IIHS.
Sadly, that's the *best* case scenario, because it means that if they
haven't formed a strong opinion yet, they might still be open to an
opposing point of view - which again is why the NMA is so vitally important.

The moton lobby has WAY more influence than it deserves, and a lot
more than the groups you describe as biased.

Motorists have more political clout than Redflex, ATS, or the IIHS?
Simply not true. Motorists have almost no clout whatsoever. Any time
someone dares to speak up about a real issue, they're inevitably shouted
down with accusations of being anti-safety (much like this thread,
actually.)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

What freaking planet are you on?
Motor manufacturers spend an absolute fortune on lobbying - far beyond
any resources of those who seek to limit their influence.
You think they spend that money for fun, and without any results?
Then throw in the oil industry, which sings from the same songsheet.

The "motor industry" has their own best interests at heart, not the
interests of the motorist. You can "thank" them (mostly General Motors)
for such brilliant acts as pressuring NHTSA to allow overly bright,
glaring high beam DRLs against the better judgement of pretty much
everyone who knew what they were talking about. Why? Because they
could advertise the DRLs as a "safety feature" and yet implement them
cheaply (by running two halogen high beam bulbs in series for the DRL
function) rather than designing a better system that might provide a
safety advantage but might cost a little more.

Yet again, "safety" is used to sell something that does nothing to
actually improve safety.

The "motor industry" wants to sell more new motor vehicles. The oil
industry wants to maximize its profits either by selling more oil or
increasing its margins on the oil that it sells. Neither one of those
interests is necessarily aligned with the interest of the average
motorist. They certainly don't care about me, because I tend to buy my
vehicles used, keep them for 5-10 years, and I actually care about fuel
usage - in other words, the type of customer they really don't want.
(and as I do tend to keep my vehicles long term, I have an incentive to
not want my vehicle to be wrecked into, as that would mean that I'd have
to go shopping for a new one before I'd budgeted to do so.)

I can only assume that you are either very young and inexperienced or
have lead a very protected existence. Of course the car industry and
the oil businesses want to increase their sales and profits....... You
seem to consider this an amazing desire although they share this with
every other business on the face of the earth.

Or would you care to describe a series of businesses that don't want
to increase sales and profits.


They also very much want people to choose private
automobiles (better yet for people to think they have
no choice), for all aspects of society to promote
and reinforce and lock this in, and ever-expanding
capacity for more automobile traffic, emphasizing
policies that eliminate any incentive to consider
other modes.

Duh.

That said, Portland has Zipcars, auto insurance rates
by-the-mile, and a billboard depicting a car with two
bikes on a roof rack and the legend: "Finally a car
that is suitable for your bike"

See how that culture change thing works? :-)