[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Phil Stracchino <phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net>
>Date: 2006/08/12 Sat AM 10:51:12 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Stuff fo' sale

>Lionel Peterson wrote:
>>> From: Mike Meredith <very at zonky.org>
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:54:35 -0500 (CDT), Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
>>> [Missing attribution]
>>>>>> I'm sure each "speeder cam" is really a source of revenue,
>>>> That's because they were put into place to be a revenue source, rather
>>>> than to increase public safety.
>>> My instinctive reaction on hearing people complain about speed cameras
>>> being used for revenue raising is 'So?'. After all speeding is against
>>> the law so motorists who break the law have no leg to stand on when they
>>> start complaining.
>> 
>> Yup.
>
>So, you both think it's perfectly fine to site speed traps at the
>bottoms of hills to  catch people who didn't notice they picked up two
>or three mph rolling down the hill?  Or to intentionally set
>artificially low speed limits to increase speed ticket revenue?

As one of the "both" you are referring to, I never asserted anything like that.

Speed traps are effective tools, and if used wisely can be very effective. My town has a police car with a maniquin in it they park in areas where people typically speed -most people slow down when they see the car, and that is what is desired. SOmetimes they park a live police car (real officer) in the same spots, and then they write summonses for those they catch. That is reasonable, IMHO.

Police cars can either be hidden (behind a billboard, say, is the classic example) or out in the open - if hidden, their purpose is to catch people - if out in the open, their purpose is to get people to slow down.

>And you don't think it causes a traffic problem when the speed limit
>changes four times (over a 20mph range) in 300 yards?  (It's on Route
>202 near Paoli, Pennsylvania.  Within a span of about 300 yards, the
>speed limit goes from 35, to 45, to 25, and back to 45.)

Those are problems without speeder cams, proving the problem (at least in those cases) are unrelated to the discussion at hand.

My town has a speed limit of 25 MPH on ALL ROADS except one, and it works out well for us - the town is only 1 mile square, an dif it weren't for the stop light you can be "across town" in under five minutes...

>The biggest problem with speed enforcement is that the speed limits, as
>a whole, are not set by traffic engineers with safety in mind.  They are
>set by politicians who wouldn't know a traffic engineering survey if it
>bit them in the ass, and who largely fail to obey their own speed limits
>anyway.

Enforcement is seperate from speed limits.

Many highways were designed for traffic to run at certain speeds which are higher than the federally mandated (until very recently) 55 MPH maximum. In California a schoolbus shot over the edge of an off ramp becuase the speed limit was inconsistent with the design of the off-ramp - I don't think those parents were pleased their children were used to point that out...

>There was a case in one city I lived in (I forget which) where a local
>politician spearheaded a "grassroots" campaign to get more police
>enforcement of the 25mph speed limit on his street, apparently in an
>attempt to buy popularity among the large number of elderly residents in
>the area.  Finally, he got his wish.  I'll give you one guess who the
>first person cited for violating the new speed limit was.
>
>My problem with far too many speed limits is that they are ostensibly
>set for safety reasons, but with no visible rhyme or reason and no
>consistency or apparent relation to actual safety factors.  Many times
>I've seen the speed limit on a road of unchanging nature change by 20mph
>or even 25mph when you cross the jurisdiction of a border.  More than
>once I've driven down a two-lane road with buildings on both sides
>signed for 45mph, then turned directly from it onto a four-lane divided
>road with buildings set well back that's signed for 30mph.
>
>People widely disrespect speed limits for one simple reason:  because a
>large proportion of speed limits are assigned in purely arbitrary ways
>that inspire no respect.  Most people, left to themselves, will drive at
>a speed which they consider safe and reasonable.  Most of the time,
>they'll be right.  (The ones who don't care if it's safe or not and just
>want to drive fast as hell, typically will not obey any set speed limits
>anyway, no matter how reasonable.)  The vast majority of traffic
>accidents do not occur because somebody was driving at an unsafe speed;
>they occur because somebody wasn't paying attention.  Making drivers
>bored and frustrated by requiring them to drive 25mph on a road that
>would be perfectly safe at 45mph makes that worse, not better, and the
>places where the safe speed REALLY IS 25mph probably would be respected
>much more if half the other streets in town weren't signed 25mph as well
>for no apparent reason.  It's the "cry wolf" principle.

"Think of the children!"

You can't argue that the motive BEHIND a speed limit in traffic court was bad and hope to win. An educated electorate is the best response to these types of problems, but most people seem to have a sense of ennui regarding politics.

Lionel