There is a HUGE difference between running a red light and speeding. Speeding in and of itself is not dangerous, IF the road and the conditions allow it. It's only when you drive like an idiot (weaving in and out, cutting people off, not signaling etc...), that you are a danger. These things can not be caught by a camera, and they SHOULD be caught. I have no problem getting pulled over by a cop if I do something wrong but getting a ticket in the mail.... That's just wrong. Put more cops on the road NOT cameras.
Photo radar
- Thread starter Quest4Less
- Start date
Sheik said:
The $2 million was listed as the annual operating budget in the report I read, Sheik. It was broken out as the cost of maintaining the cameras and the network as well as the processing and administration of the tickets and fines. It may not be $2 million but I can't see it running for free once it's been implemented.
The red light runners are a problem and it's tragic when something like that happens Sheik. I'm not against the red light cameras because I am an excellent driver and they wont affect me.
I would just like to see the system not cost taxpayers.mmouse said:
This is not the case in the least. Stats show that the number of accidents actually *caused* by speeding are quite low (nearly zero, in fact). The true cause of most accidents is some other driving related infraction (basically poor driving habits) and the speeding component just tells you how much damage will be done as a result of that other stupid error. The truth is that if everyone was doing 140km/h on the 401 with proper spacing, signals, etc., things would be much safer than a world with photo radar.
Actually, our current speed limit system is designed for safety using both road and car design parameters from the 60s and 70s. As such, the speed limits are set *much* lower than they should be for today's roads and vehicles. All 400-series highways are designed for 140km/h travel rates (which is proven by the low rate of collisions after midnight when cars are easily travelling that fast or better) but it is the refusal of government to expect a higher standard when testing and police to enforce all other traffic laws that requires things be dumbed down.
PAL
I don't disagree with any of this, but can you dispute that, overall, the accident rate is not REDUCED by driving over the speed limit. All things being equal (driving habits, roads etc.) excess speed only increases accidents.
If so - why do you want to break the speed limit? To catch a show on TV?
If so - why do you want to break the speed limit? To catch a show on TV?
mmouse said:
Ummm, no, actually as stated speed does not CAUSE accidents. It is a factor in damage once an accident happens, but that's all.
Quest4Less said:
Exactly....it is the careless use of speed hat sometimes causes accidents but that entails a careless driving offense. Speeding by a properly trained driver is safer than lower speeds with driver having bad driving habits.
And I don't speed to catch a TV show so much as to not be subjected to the risk of the bad drivers killing me for a moment longer than absolutely necessary.
PAL
