FightingArts Estore
Pressure Points
From a medical professional, straight facts on where and how to hit that can save your life.
Stretching
Limber or not, anyone can add height and speed to their kicks with this method.
Calligraphy
For yourself or as a gift, calligraphy is special, unique and lasting.
Karate Uniforms
Look your best. Max snap. low cost & superior crafted: “Peak Performance Gold” 16 oz uniforms.

MOTOBU
Classic book translation. Hard to find. Not in stores.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 44 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
AndyLA, danacohenn, ksusanc, kellypnik123, leyinn
22904 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Dobbersky 14
cxt 7
trevek 6
JKogas 5
futsaowingchun 3
July
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
New Topics
Applied center line theory
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:55 AM
centerline concepts
by futsaowingchun
07/14/14 10:49 PM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/11/14 03:36 PM
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:14 AM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
12/30/13 08:32 AM
Where Are They Now?
by Dobbersky
05/30/13 08:08 AM
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Prizewriter
04/16/12 02:48 PM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
04/12/12 11:16 AM
Throwing
by
04/23/05 10:58 PM
Recent Posts
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Dobbersky
07/29/14 05:11 AM
Applied center line theory
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:55 AM
centerline concepts
by futsaowingchun
07/28/14 08:53 AM
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by cxt
07/24/14 11:35 AM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/14/14 04:50 PM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:35 AM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
07/09/14 06:13 AM
Throwing
by JKogas
07/03/14 07:40 PM
Forum Stats
22904 Members
36 Forums
35564 Topics
432455 Posts

Max Online: 424 @ 09/24/13 10:38 PM
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#350086 - 07/06/07 10:45 AM Police and traffic safety
Midnightcrawler Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 184
Loc: England
Quote:

Quote:

No-one seems to have considered the 'other' function of police work. Namely, to enforce and ensure the 'status quo' between differing sectors of society remains intact. As is evidenced in the UK when 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

They (the police) are also a tax gathering organisation with 'the motorist' being their 'cash cow'. Why else would there be as many 'safety cameras' as they are now called on sections of road where there has never been an accident?




I agree that alot of traffic enforcement has NOTHING to do with public safety. Unmarked cruisers? Cops hiding while running radar? Complete BS. If they were really interested in traffic safety, they wouldn't be hidden at all. Who speeds when cops are in plain sight?

That said, the police are only enforcing the laws that have been made by others. If the public would stop being pu$$ies, we wouldn't allow stupid laws or court rulings. The people get the government they deserve.




Totally agree. Some spot on statements in your post.

edited to change title


Edited by MattJ (07/08/07 09:54 PM)

Top
#350087 - 07/08/07 10:44 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Midnightcrawler]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
I have split this from the Police interrogation technique thread here:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...39#Post15950512

To keep that one on topic. All traffic replies should go in this thread. I do stand by my assertion that most traffic enforcement in the USA is based on revenue accumulation, not safety. Many studies have indicated that speed itself is not necessarily a contributing factor in accidents, although I agree that higher speeds make accidents more severe when they happen. Here are some that I found:

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/292.asp

This is simply a convienient way to fleece the public, whilst sounding morally high-handed. Please note that I am not recommending breaking any laws - just pointing out stupid ones. Rural stop sign enforcement is another one. Many other countries use "Yeild" or "Give Way" signs in merge areas where traffic is very low volume. To have police hiding at these intersections to pounce on motorists that creep through, without coming to a FULL DEAD STOP is silly.

With 'road rage' drivers a much greater menace, I find that apportioning officers for a useless detail like this is an insulting waste of MY tax dollars.

And so on......
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#350088 - 07/08/07 11:52 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: MattJ]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:


I have provided supporting evidence that there is a significant relationship between speeding and road fatalities ( a fraction of what is available).




In every crash involving a fatality, the vehicles had tires. There is therefore a relationship between tires and fatalities.

In every crash involving a fatality, there was oxygen in the air. There is therefore a relationship between oxygen and fatalities.


I have now provided you with evidence that there is a relationship (also known as a correlation) between tires/oxygen and traffic fatalities.

As we learn in statistics 101, correlation does not indicate causation. Driving fast does not automatically mean you are going to die. I'd rather have well trained drivers doing 100mph than have American drivers doing 55.

Quote:

the 50 deaths per year have been directly contributed to speeding, we have considerable more deaths that may have speed as a factor but the contributing factor is deemed as more influential to the outcome ( for eg drink driving, driver fatigue ).




If you firmly believe that, say, red paint is very unsafe, and you see a wreck involving a car that is painted red, your natural conclusion will be that the red paint was a "contributing factor." You'll be dead wrong, but the nasty thing about pre-conceived beliefs is that they tend to crowd out your ability to consider other possibilities.

For decades we've been brainwashed into thinking that speed kills. Because of that brainwashing, when we hear of a wreck in which someone was going fast, we automatically blame the speed. We don't blame the atrocious driver training that led to the moron behind the wheel deciding to do something that caused the crash. We don't blame the fact that we don't teach driving students how to handle the car in emergency situations. We don't blame the fact that people get to keep their licenses even when they've proven time and again that they're mouth-breathing idiots behind the wheel.

Quote:

to pretend that speed is simply "blamed" as a form of scape goat is being simply naive.
"Speed doesn't kill crashes do",
what a load of crap




You can sit there and think it's a load of crap all you want. You can think it's a load of crap that video games are not to blame for school violence. But while you sit there believing these false ideas, people will still die on the roads and students will still get shot in schools because rather than addressing the real problems, people will keep blaming scapegoats.

Quote:

thats like saying the bullet didn't kill it was the shredding of the vital organs that kills,




No, it isn't, but really nice try. Speed does not kill. Go 100mph some time. Assuming you don't crash, you won't die, even though you are engaging in "speed." The speed will not kill you. Screwing up while traveling that speed, might well kill you. So if you want to go that fast, it would behoove you to learn how not to screw up while doing so, wouldn't it?

Quote:


The evidence is clear as is the physics, the faster you go the longer it takes to stop - result - there is greater chance of hitting an object or person




So at what point do you decide to draw the line? I mean, an impact at 10mph is certainly less likely to kill you than an impact at 55. Why not lower speed limits to something totally safe?

Further, how do you resolve the fact that there are fewer fatalities on the extremely-high-speed autobahn than there are on the low speed interstates? If speed kills, the autobahn should be a bloodbath.


Quote:

( maybe someone's child)




That's asinine. You're suggesting a child is more valuable than an adult? You're just trying to run an emotional argument here in order to shore up an incredibly week logical argument.

Quote:

you have much less time to react -see the vids I posted




Again, are you suggesting we lower limits to 10mph?

Quote:

The faster you travel the greater the impact of a collision- result - you will cause more damage to the object or person




The heavier the object the more damage you'll cause too, but I don't see you fighting against SUV's and big-assed cars. and yet again, you seem to be suggesting it'd be a good idea to lower speed limits to absurdly low numbers.

Quote:

( maybe your child)




More emotional appeal to distract from a weak logic point.


Quote:

simple physics provide scientific evidence of the effect of speeding thanks to me newton.




Simple collision physics won't come into play if you don't collide with anything. Teach people to drive well and you'll reduce the rate of collisions. You'll end up saving more people than by having artificially low speed limits.

Quote:


well for one thing there are 1 000's of more people within these zones, there will be 1000's of more cars on the road in 60 km/h zones, makes sense seeing these are the urban and suburban areas.




Sure, that's a given. But I don't think anyone's suggesting that we up the speed limits to 150mph on crowded downtown city streets. But you Aussies don't have a monopoly on long-assed stretches of nearly empty roads. The USA is a much larger country geographically than you guys are. If you want to get from state to state you're gonna be in the car for many hours. I make a drive at least once a month that takes me 4.5 hours at legal speeds. I could easily go almost twice those speeds safely for most of that trip because it's on long stretches of 4 lane highways that don't have many cars on them.

Quote:


Of the fatalities that occur in these lower speed zones many ( at least 30%) involved vehicles traveling above the posted speed limit. ie they were speeding.

so other then the considerable difference between the number of people in these zones what other factors come into play.




Driving too fast for conditions is different from the blanket statement that speed kills. Speed doesn't kill. Speed combined with other factors kills. Of course if you're doing 100 in a crowd of cars going 30, bad things will happen. But if you're doing 100 in light traffic, all of which is also going 100, you're pretty safe.

Quote:

you mention the difference between the no of deaths on the autobahn compared to the US highways. well for one thing you mentioned "the unlimited sections of the autobahn" I imaging that the section of the road is designed for speed, i imagine that section is very well maintained. why isn't all the autobahn limitless speed.




As you said, some parts of the autobahn are too crowded and have to have slower speeds. But the Germans are smart enough to realize that, while 60kph might be required in some places for safety's sake, it's OK to go a lot faster in areas where the road is much safer. the USA isn't quite that smart. 65 is considered just as safe through the Milwaukee metro area as it is in remote areas of Wisconsin. Now, either we're driving too fast in Milwaukee, or we're driving artificially slow elsewhere.

You're also correct in that the autobahn is a better designed roadway. Thicker concrete, banked turns, wide shoulders. .. They even have deer warning lights lining the trees on the sides of the road. But that's no excuse for the USA. Our roads certainly do suck, but rather than using that as an excuse to keep speeds artificially low, why not use that as a stimulus to improve the roads?. It's way past time they got better.

Quote:

The US highway system is a hell of a lot greater in length then the autobahns it would be impossible to maintain the entire highway system to the same level as the limitless section of the autobahn.




Bah. Not hardly. We have a ready workforce to keep the highways and all our other infrastructure maintained. They're called prisoners

Quote:

that might be why they have placed a speed limit on them, to indicate the max speed appropriate for the road.




In some cases - - but there are plenty of straight smooth sections of interstate that could be traveled on a lot faster than 65mph.


Quote:

Finally when traveling at greater speed a driver will be more vigilant and cautious, infact they will probably drive "safer" then at lower speeds. this is because there is a danger with traveling at these kind of speeds and when ever there is a danger present the human ( and any other animal) will be more vigilant and aware then normal.




That would seem to be an argument that speed does not kill

Quote:


Speed limits are generally determined to keep motorists safe for the conditions of the road or environment.




Nope. Wrong. States set a max speed for the interstates. Usually between 60 and 70mph. Even on long stretches of nearly empty, straight highway, you can't go faster than the state maximum. It'd be safe to do 100, assuming you know how to drive, but the speed limits aren't set there.

Quote:

yes I will admit that at times it appears that some areas seem to be limited to "trap drivers" but in general you will find that these places have a history of MVA's.




Uh, no. Show me where you got that. Speed traps are set up specifically because the stretch of road they're on will support much higher speeds, so the tendency is to maintain a normal speed, at which point you get a ticket.

Quote:

If speed doesn't kill then would you agree that all speed limits should be removed and people allowed to travel at any speed that desire,




On interstates, combined with a good driver training and licensing program, absolutely.

Quote:


And could you provide some actual evidence as to your autobahn and US highway comparison. please.




Here's a quote from an article by Forbes' James Clash in September of 2006:

Quote:

More than half of the 11,000-kilometer (6,835-mile) German Autobahn system has no speed limit. It is perfectly legal there, for example, to pass a police car at 200 km/h (124 mph). In fact, according to Mark Rask, author of 1999’s American Autobahn, the average speed for cars is 130 km/h (81 mph); at any given moment, 15 percent are traveling 155 km/h (96 mph) or faster. Surprisingly, the Autobahn is safer than U.S. highways. In 2001, the death rate there was 27 percent lower (0.59 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled versus 0.81 per million for the U.S. interstates), according to Rask.
Why? Drivers in Germany must be at least 18 years old and fork over more than $1,000 to undergo 24 hours of rigorous private instruction, including training on the Autobahn, and pass a comprehensive written test before obtaining a license. Compare this to the U.S., with no required training and a minimum age of 16 in some states. Also, unlike in the U.S., Germans use the left lane only for passing. Roads over there are built better, too -- a 70-centimeter (27.5-inch) roadbed versus 28 centimeters (11 inches) in the U.S. -- and are better maintained. So are German cars made by BMW and Mercedes, which handle easier at high speeds and sustain less collision damage.




Quote:

if you travel at more then the speed limit you are breaking the law




I'm not suggesting that we speed. I'm suggesting that the laws are artificially restrictive.

Quote:

and according to the previous Pope (John Paul) you are also sinning.




To be quite frank, I don't really give a rat's behind if the pope thinks I'm sinning or not. I don't agree with him, his church, or his policies. And before he runs around accusing me of being a sinner, maybe he should consider stopping his employees from raping the altar boys. Maybe he should consider not protecting the priests who do rape little boys. Until the Catholic church cleans up that big stinking problem in their back yard, I'll thank them to keep their nose out of my speedometer.
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350089 - 07/09/07 01:01 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
I refuse to argue this with you or any one else ( ok maybe a little). like most members of this forum you simply say I am wrong with out providing one line of evidence other then your own conjecture as proff to my incorrectness.

I do not understand why you feel the need to justify your obvious disregard for the law. you like to travel fast fair enough the male brain is especially susceptible to moving an object through space as quickly as possible. But a public road is not a responsible place to get your fix of speed , not when there are safer and responsible alternatives. Your arguments seem to be based on a very small section of the worlds roads that I have already provided reasons for their superior statistics. Save your speeding for these designated roads, which by the way is not illegal to travel fast on therefore it is not speeding as commonly defined. these sections of the road have been deemed save to travel at unrestricted speeds on. You did not answer my question as to why there is limits on the other half of the autobahn system

You can live with your head in the sand or with your government conspiracy paranoia. it it seems to me that you are more interested in saying I am wrong then acknowledging the statistical supported fact that speeding is a major contributor to road fatalities. I am not and have not suggested it is the only factor nor Have I said it is the cause of it. But there is a relationship with a strong correlation ( which, contrary to your definition, represents the strength of the relationship between to variables.)

cause can only be determined in an experiment and not by observation. the statistics speak for them selves. two things are indicated.

1 - speeding is a significant contributor to road fatalities. ( not the only)
2 - An accident which involves speeding is more likely to produce a fatality then one without speeding.

if you can provide any evidence that actually proves either of these two statements wrong then please do so. (and providing an alternative to the cause does not produce proof) Don't even bother responding if you cannot provide the evidence.

That is all i am saying on this subject, the law is the law whether you like it or not. the facts speak for them selves, and everything i have said has been backed by supporting third party studies.

if I continue arguing this we both will be covered in mud , but you will enjoy it.
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#350090 - 07/09/07 05:57 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Shadowkahn,

Well-thought post, but you lost me on one point.

Who is it directed at? I can't figure that out. Sorry for being stupid, WoW kind of toasted my brains.

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350091 - 07/09/07 08:50 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

I refuse to argue this with you or any one else ( ok maybe a little). like most members of this forum you simply say I am wrong with out providing one line of evidence other then your own conjecture as proff to my incorrectness.




Well .. yeah. . . except of course for providing you with the statistics that show the autobahn is safer than US highways. . .but other than that tiny little piece of evidence which flies in the face of the "speed kills" BS, I guess you're right



Quote:

I do not understand why you feel the need to justify your obvious disregard for the law.




I never said I speed. I said the speed limits are too low. I'm not disregarding the law, I'm advocating changing it.

Quote:

you like to travel fast fair enough the male brain is especially susceptible to moving an object through space as quickly as possible. But a public road is not a responsible place to get your fix of speed , not when there are safer and responsible alternatives.




Which I use. I get my "fix of speed" on the race track, not the highway.

Quote:

Save your speeding for these designated roads, which by the way is not illegal to travel fast on therefore it is not speeding as commonly defined.




So you're now retracting your original position and saying that, rather than speed kills, it should be speedING kills?

Quote:

these sections of the road have been deemed save to travel at unrestricted speeds on. You did not answer my question as to why there is limits on the other half of the autobahn system




Yes I did. Read again.


Quote:

You can live with your head in the sand or with your government conspiracy paranoia.




Government conspiracy? Are we reading the same post? I never said it was a conspiracy.

Quote:

it it seems to me that you are more interested in saying I am wrong then acknowledging the statistical supported fact that speeding is a major contributor to road fatalities.




I'm more interested in finding the actual cause of traffic wrecks than in blaming some BS scape goat that will make people feel good about themselves while not solving anything.

Quote:

I am not and have not suggested it is the only factor nor Have I said it is the cause of it. But there is a relationship with a strong correlation ( which, contrary to your definition, represents the strength of the relationship between to variables.)




Go look up statistics again. I can give you a correlation of just about anything to anything. Every day that someone has a heart attack the sun rises. Therefore there's a correlation between the sun rising and having a heart attack. Every time there's a rape someone somewhere sneezes. Therefore there's a correlation between sneezing and rape. Correlations are statistically meaningless. They might suggest to you an area for further study to see if there's a causal relationship between two things, but they do not in and of themselves prove that causal relationship.


Quote:

1 - speeding is a significant contributor to road fatalities. ( not the only)




Once again, you've switched. You're now talking about speedING, not speed. I'm advocating raising or eliminating speed limits where safe - speedING would then no longer be an issue. You have still failed to prove that SPEED, not speeding, kills.


Quote:


if I continue arguing this we both will be covered in mud , but you will enjoy it.




What exactly is that supposed to mean?
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350092 - 07/09/07 08:52 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
harlan Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 07/31/04
Posts: 6664
Loc: Amherst, MA
No, 'speed' doesn't kill. Impact does. Been in several car accidents, been hit by a car (as well as two members of my family), had a loved one die in a car crash. All other factors taken into consideration, speed is a significant factor in force of impact.

'Speeding' is actually a pet peeve of mine, as I'm certain most of the roadkill I see every day wouldn't occur if folks just used the posted limit as the 'top speed in optimal conditions' point of view. Road speed is determined by formula...by slope, width, line of sight, etc. Personally, I think police have better things to do than garner town funds by laying in wait for speeders...like catch some white collar criminals. BUT, that is a focus that comes from top down. If people want that to change...they have to be vocal in their town and state governments as to what they want as a focus.

Top
#350093 - 07/09/07 12:44 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Taison]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

Shadowkahn,

Well-thought post, but you lost me on one point.

Who is it directed at? I can't figure that out. Sorry for being stupid, WoW kind of toasted my brains.

-Taison out




It's a continuation of the split topic - - a mod split the police interrogation topic and moved the speed limit debate to this one. Kinda confusing I know
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350094 - 07/09/07 01:32 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Ok...

SpeedING kills, not speed.

I drive fast, but I drive safe and within the road laws. If however, I was to go beyond that limit where it become practically dangerous, then it's not speed that'll kill me, it's the impact resulting from acceleration and the insecurities associated with it.

For people who have less IQ like me; If I drive safe and don't exceed the speed limit = safe. If I drive faster than the speed limit = (censored) start happening and the results may be fatal. Now why does it become fatal? Because if I was to go over the recommended limit, I'd be an idiot and expose myself to silly risks. Now what is the main cause of the accident? Speed or stupidity? I'd go with the latter.

In BKK, on the highways, cars can drive upto 130km and yet very few accidents happens when compared to the more common roads where the speed limit has been set at 80, yet so much accidents happens everyday. The main reason? Not sure, but I'd credit it to bad command of the vehicle and bad choice of decision.

I agree with what Shadowkahn has posted so far in this post, haven't been in the mood to backtrack to the older posts in the other thread.

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350095 - 07/09/07 01:56 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Taison]
trevek Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 05/15/05
Posts: 3337
Loc: Poland
I'd say it is the mis-use of speed which kills.

An earlier post laments that many drivers aren't taught how to react in an emergency situation and yet those situations often arise because someone is mis-using their speed or driving faster than they have the ability to control.

I think there is something to be said for advanced training in vehicles. The amount of times I see an in experienced driver THINK they can do something fast (in a non-emergency) and almost fail is astounding.

Likewise I think there is a problem with a driver having too muich speed and abusing it. Daily I drive along a narrow rural road which has trees at the side (nowhere to go if you leave the road except around a tree) and daily at least two or three idiots will use their super power and acceleration to overtake 3 or 4 cars at a time in the face of oncoming traffic. Funnily it is known as a death road.

Interestingly, drining on German autobahns (no speed limit) there seems to be less accidents because the people using them know HOW to use them. There isn't the mix of slowsters and speed-demons.
_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

Supporting everyone saying "nuts to cancer"

Top
#350096 - 07/09/07 10:32 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

I'd say it is the mis-use of speed which kills.





Exactly. Artificially restricting speeds to make up for crappy driver training is dumb. Especially when you consider that a road that's safe at 65mph in June becomes a deathtrap at 30 in a February ice storm. People don't tend to consider that - a car on ice at 30 will be less controllable than a car on dry pavement at 100. Lowering maximum speed limits is not the answer. Good training so that drivers learn how to control their car when it is on - or beyond - the edge of control, is the answer.

Sure, you can run a crap training program as we do here in the good ol' US of A, and if you keep the speed limits low enough it'll probably be somewhat safe, as long as the weather is nice. But as soon as the snow or ice storm hits, the roads turn into one big orgy of stupid, as drivers who don't think about such mundane topics as tire grip go entirely too fast for conditions, and then don't know how to correct when the car goes into a skid.

But it gets worse. A driving school in Minnesota was punished by the state because it had too high of a on-the-road to classroom time ratio. Drivers in this school learned to control the car at its limits. First the instructor would send 'em out in gokarts at the local kart track, and he'd throw oil down on one corner. After they mastered skid control in a kart, they moved on to a car which had casters in place of rear wheels - the slightest move of the wheel threw it into a skid and students had to master that before they could pass. His instruction was far and away more advanced and intense than regular driving schools, but because he didn't get approval from the state, and because he didn't spend enough time in a class room telling the students what a stop sign looks like, he got in trouble.

Not only does the USA fail to train drivers properly, but we punish those who try to do so. Our licensing and training program is broken, bigtime, and we deal with artificially low speed limits, AND a higher wreck rate as a result.
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350097 - 07/09/07 10:37 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Quote:

I'd say it is the mis-use of speed which kills.


Hallelujah! Yes yes! That was what I was trying to say. Thank Trevek, thanks!

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350098 - 07/09/07 11:09 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
Quote:

except of course for providing you with the statistics that show the autobahn is safer than US highways.




But I had agreed to that statement

Quote:

Quote:

these sections of the road have been deemed save to travel at unrestricted speeds on. You did not answer my question as to why there is limits on the other half of the autobahn system



Yes I did. Read again.





I apologize and stand corrected as to you providing this explanation, My bad.

I have always been arguing that speedING kills, actually you are stuck on a short post i provided originally ( see below) that was in the form of a community announcement and aimed at driver awareness
Quote:

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS

--------------------
With Honour in Bushido
Drew
http://www.bushidojos.websyte.com.au/
Toowoomba Self Defence




you are arguing semantics, I have always indicated that it is Illegal speed that kills, and i have also argued that the faster you travel ( whether illegal or not ) the more damage occurs. this is not only backed by stats (previously provided) but also by the universal laws of physics) Are you going to argue that speed does not influence the impact of a punch. do you not agree that a car hitting a child traveling at 100 km/h is not more likely to
a) cause the death of a child and
b) allows less time to react and stop.
then a car traveling at 40 km/h



You have not provided a coalition between anything. you have erroneously stated that there is a relationship between (for e.g.) road deaths and oxygen. in reality all you have done is stated two variables that are present in the said situation. in order for their to be a relationship a change in one must result in a change in the other. Seeing the levels of oxygen stay relatively stable and remains unchanged whether there is a crash a death or no traffic at all. there Is no relationship just a coexistence. a correlation is not a relationship it is the strength of a relationship.

on the other hand as speed increases the chance of death in an accident also increases, this is a relationship and the correlation between speed and chance of death is positive and strong. if it was drawn on a graph it would show a relative straight line increasing in hight as it moves to the right. if you are going to argue statistics at least get your terms correct first. ( and yes I have complete university level statistics )

I agreed with you previously that there are other factors that can influence road fatalities and that there may be a combination of factors, just like with the impact of a punch. I am not arguing that speed ( or speeding) is the only factor, I am have only ever said it was a significant factor in road fatalities.

If we want to be semantic then I am still correct, in order for a vehicle to be in involved in a fatal collision then it must be moving and traveling at a speed at a rate of distance over time. so technically every road fatality that has involved a moving vehicle has involved speed ( since a moving vehicle has speed, n.b. speed is velocity with out direction taken into account)

so it would seem that that regardless of how you take the my words (ie speed or speeding), physics tell us My statement is true.

OK From what I can decipher you are basically saying that in your opinion you believe that the posted speed limits are to low ( though I'l admit it took a while for you to get to that point, it seemed you where more keen to argue against me then to state your opinion)). This is your opinion and I respect that. and in some instances I would even agree with you. however in general i disagree. These speed limits are not just plucked out of the air, nor are they set to deliberately catch innocent driver (i concede that some do very much appear to be nothing but a trap, but only some). These limits have been determined using science, statistics, observation and experience, they are primarily based on independent studies, conducted by insurance companies, road assistance organisations, traffic authorities, and by national universities.

it seems to be easier to blame the authorities for revenue raising then to acknowledge that lower speeds do save lives.

I'm going to re post the clips I posted in the other thread for those who may want to have a look

<snip>
please watch the clip below:

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb6d2f00d77fddb/stopping_distances_tvc.mpg

and watch this clip which is a re-enactment of an actual accident. imagine you are the driver

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633405fd42f0f/Wmv_rs_pram_1_small.wmv

and then this one
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633905fd609b9/Wmv_rs_pram_2_small.wmv

<end snip>

Shadowkahn, I am happy to simply "agree to disagree" on this, it is after all only a differing of opinions, between two people from different cultures. I still hold firm to my believes, but I can also respect that you hold yours.
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#350099 - 07/10/07 07:42 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Drew -

I see your point about safety, and I'm not arguing that safety isn't a *small* component of the police duty in traffic enforcement. However, when you see things like this:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/virginians-face-3000-traffic-ticket/20070701103509990001

"Virginia is for lovers, or so the state slogan has declared since 1969. Starting today, Virginia also will be the home of the $3,000 traffic ticket. In an effort to raise money for road projects, the state will start hitting residents who commit serious traffic offenses with huge civil penalties. The new civil charges range from $750 to $3,000 and be added to existing fines and court costs. The civil penalty for going 20 mph over the speed limit will be $1,050, plus $61 in court costs and a fine that is typically about $200.

Virginia's traffic law is one of several thousand new state laws that take effect Sunday. Jan. 1 and July 1 are the most popular dates for state laws to become official. July 1 is especially popular for new taxes and fees because it's the start of the budget year in 46 states. For example, Arkansas will cut its sales tax on groceries from 6% to 3% Sunday.

Virginia's new traffic penalties are expected to raise $65 million a year and are part of an effort to improve the state's roads without raising taxes. A first-time drunken driver will face a $2,250 civil penalty, plus fines and court costs that typically run about $500 or more. Driving without a license? That's a mandatory $900 civil penalty, in addition to the ordinary $100 for a fine and court costs.

"It's outrageous," says traffic court attorney Thaddeus Furlong of Springfield, Va. "When Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class find out what they have to pay, there's going to be a backlash like you've never seen." Some other states impose extra civil penalties for traffic offenses, but the cost is usually $100 or $200, Furlong says. "What sets this apart is the Draconian size of the civil penalties," he says.

Another difference: The civil penalties apply only to Virginia residents, not out-of-state drivers. Virginians must pay in three installments over 26 months or lose their licenses. The state Legislature didn't think it could enforce the extra penalties in other states. Motorist club AAA Mid-Atlantic supports the new penalties. "These penalties are harsh, but normal fines haven't gotten people to drive sanely. Maybe this will," says Lon Anderson, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

He says the new law will help reduce the nearly 1,000 traffic deaths the state records annually. "We wish motorists didn't have to pay more, but the fact is Virginia's transportation trust fund is broke," Anderson says."

Note how the emphasis is on revenue enhancement. And why doesn't Virginia tax (whoops......fine, I mean) out-of-state drivers like that? Maybe because tourists (ANOTHER revenue source) would stop coming through the state? Hmmmmm.......
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#350100 - 07/10/07 12:34 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

Quote:

except of course for providing you with the statistics that show the autobahn is safer than US highways.




But I had agreed to that statement




Which was my whole point. I'm not advocating that we speed. I'm advocating that we raise the speed limit.


Quote:

Quote:

I have always been arguing that speedING kills, actually you are stuck on a short post i provided originally ( see below) that was in the form of a community announcement and aimed at driver awareness
Quote:

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS





But we must be sure that we are raising awareness of actual problems. Speed does not kill. Bad driving kills.

Are you going to argue that speed does not influence the impact of a punch. do you not agree that a car hitting a child traveling at 100 km/h is not more likely to
a) cause the death of a child and
b) allows less time to react and stop.
then a car traveling at 40 km/h





Certainly not - although I wish you'd stop resorting to what amounts to emotional cheap shots with the child examples.

An airplane traveling at 600 mph that hits a child will cause extraordinary damage to the child, yet we do not outlaw flying. Why? Because the likelihood of the airplane hitting the child is so remote that, even though the consequences are horrendous, there is little risk of it actually happening.

By the same token, if we trained our drivers even half as well as we train our pilots, the likelihood of a wreck of any sort would be so greatly reduced that, even with higher speed limits, the total number of deaths (and wrecks in general) would fall off.






You have not provided a coalition between anything. you have erroneously stated that there is a relationship between (for e.g.) road deaths and oxygen. in reality all you have done is stated two variables that are present in the said situation.




That's the definition of a correlation.

Quote:

in order for their to be a relationship a change in one must result in a change in the other.




Not necessarily but even accepting that argument at face value, consider this example. Satellite communications blackouts are often accompanied by increased intensity of the northern lights. A casual observer considering these two facts might conclude that the northern lights causes communications blackouts - he doesn't know that it's a solar flare that caused both. So even though the northern lights variable increases linearly with satellite blackouts, and is therefore correlated with it, that does not indicate a causal relationship.


Quote:

on the other hand as speed increases the chance of death in an accident also increases, this is a relationship and the correlation between speed and chance of death is positive and strong.




Yes, but the trouble with the speed kills crowd is that they've seen the correlation but haven't bothered to establish cause. With the exception of mechanical failure, EVERY "accident" is caused by someone screwing up. That's why I call them wrecks, not accidents, because people purposely decide not to become the best possible driver, and then they screw up. If they were better drivers, maybe they wouldn't have screwed up.

Quote:

if it was drawn on a graph it would show a relative straight line increasing in hight as it moves to the right.




Only if you take them from the same limited sample set. If you throw the autobahn into the mix then the number of wrecks decreases as speed limits increase to infinity, which is why the number of deaths per vehicle mile is lower than on the US highways - -they're simply better drivers over there.

Quote:

if you are going to argue statistics at least get your terms correct first. ( and yes I have complete university level statistics )




Yeah? Well, so have I. What's your point? I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I understand that there IS a difference. Do you?


Quote:

I am not arguing that speed ( or speeding) is the only factor, I am have only ever said it was a significant factor in road fatalities.




You can not make that opinion mesh with the *fact* that there are fewer wrecks per vehicle mile on the unlimited sections of the Autobahn than on US highways.

Quote:

If we want to be semantic then I am still correct, in order for a vehicle to be in involved in a fatal collision then it must be moving and traveling at a speed at a rate of distance over time. so technically every road fatality that has involved a moving vehicle has involved speed ( since a moving vehicle has speed, n.b. speed is velocity with out direction taken into account)




Quite correct. So if we take the argument that speed kills to its logical conclusion, we must ban cars. Otherwise, you can listen to me and train the drivers better so that speed doesn't get as many chances to kill.


Quote:

OK From what I can decipher you are basically saying that in your opinion you believe that the posted speed limits are to low ( though I'l admit it took a while for you to get to that point, it seemed you where more keen to argue against me then to state your opinion)).




I've been saying that all along. But if you're wrong, I'm going to argue against you as well

Quote:

This is your opinion and I respect that. and in some instances I would even agree with you. however in general i disagree. These speed limits are not just plucked out of the air,




Of course they are, because they're completely illogical. How can we have a 2-lane highway in Montana that's deemed safe enough to drive 80mph on, and then have an identically-built, identically straight 2 lane highway in Minnesota that's unsafe at higher than 55mph? It simply doesn't make any sense. Either a relatively straight 2 laner is safe at 80 or it's not. There's no magic safety force field over Montana that suddenly makes higher speeds safer. The only logical conclusion is that speed limits are arbitrarily set based on someone's OPINION of what is safe.

Quote:

nor are they set to deliberately catch innocent driver




Look up New Rome, Ohio some time if you don't believe speed limits are deliberately used to trap innocent drivers.

Quote:

(i concede that some do very much appear to be nothing but a trap, but only some).




And how do you determine the quantity of unnecessarily low speed limits out there?

Quote:

These limits have been determined using science, statistics, observation and experience, they are primarily based on independent studies, conducted by insurance companies, road assistance organisations, traffic authorities, and by national universities.




Again, that fails to mesh with facts. Are you saying that Montana used all of what you claim they use, and determined that 80mph is safe, or are you saying that Minnesota did it. They obviously didn't both do it since the speed limits are 25mph apart. So either Montana got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Minnesota is being a bunch of collective jackasses and artificially lowering the speed limits in order to boost revenue, or Minnesota got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Montana is trying to kill off its citizens. Which is it?

Quote:

Shadowkahn, I am happy to simply "agree to disagree" on this, it is after all only a differing of opinions, between two people from different cultures. I still hold firm to my believes, but I can also respect that you hold yours.




Don't stop now! Debate is fun!
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350101 - 07/10/07 01:34 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Quote:

So either Montana got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Minnesota is being a bunch of collective jackasses and artificially lowering the speed limits in order to boost revenue, or Minnesota got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Montana is trying to kill off its citizens




[sarcasm] I'd go with the latter. They're trying to kill off their citizens. [/sarcasm] *slaps himself on the forehead*

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350102 - 07/10/07 10:32 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Taison]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
Quote:

I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I understand that there IS a difference. Do you?




Causation can not be determined by observational data it can only be determined in a controlled experiment. I have only ever said that speed is a contributing factor not a cause. you are again taking my origin deliberately short post as literal.

with the odd exception all of your arguments are based on specific or based data ( e.g. the auto bahn). you are using outlying variables as proff to discredit a general statement ( the Minnesota eg). You have thrown in non related and low correlated "relationships" to discredit my independently and scientifically determined relationships ( for eg northern lights v's blackouts).

I am no longer continuing this "debate", as you are not debating you are arguing and using arguments that are flawed but may be seen as supporting to the casual reader. I ask that any reader of this post also read the appropriate sections of the "debate" here
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...part=3&vc=1
and with a couple of posts on the previous page


Quote:

Don't stop now! Debate is fun!





this is what i meant by
Quote:

if I continue arguing this we both will be covered in mud , but you will enjoy it.




a wise man once said "don't wrestle with pigs , you will both be covered in mud, but the pig will enjoy it." ( in humour)

MattJ ( and everyone else). You can not disprove a general statement by giving a specific eg. it like trying to disprove "apples are good for you' by providing evidence of a person being allergic to apples. for that specific person the statement is untrue but for the General public it is very true

This is a problem I see with "discussion" boards there is actually little discussion going on and a lot more arguing (often hiding behind terms like debate). I'm not saying that I am innocent in this , i freely admit that i have fallen into the trap of arguing instead of discussing. If someone says I am wrong I often feel compelled to prove I'm not ( it is human nature). i start to do this by providing reasons behind my point of view and if possible some other kind of evidence to back those reasons up. but there will always be some one who has to then go and try to disprove your reasons, which I don't mind as it does test my reasoning. however more often then not the "eveidence" they put forward is nothing but here say and conjecture of just a blanks statement of denial.

I have argued points regarding martial arts/self defence tactics and at one stage my entire argument was considered BS because quote "you couldn't to that to a grappler". that was it not other reason provided. if this tactic was ineffective to a grappler, I want to know why so that I can further my own base. i had provided first hand accounts, scientific truths, and even a few statistics. all to show why I believed this tactic to work. the only counter I receive is "it won't work against me or a grappler or...." I was constantly being told I was full of it and having no actual reasons or proof supplied as to why other then emotional and ego driven here say.

Sorry for the rant.

I must acknowledge that shadowkahn has at least attempted to provide reasons behind his disagreement instead of just saying "I'm right, your wrong" and he hasn't resorted to name calling or personal attacks
same can be said about MattJ here.

I use to enjoy debating but no a days I see less debate and more ego fluffing.
Good bye
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#350103 - 07/11/07 03:57 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
trevek Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 05/15/05
Posts: 3337
Loc: Poland
I recall a few years ago Glasgow police had a real crack-down on speeding with cameras galore. Problem was that many places had no speed markers and appeared to be ok for higher speeds. Also the cops were not showing discretion, just zero tolerance. I think little secret was made of the fact it was a coffer swelling exercise.
_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

Supporting everyone saying "nuts to cancer"

Top
#350104 - 07/11/07 06:55 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Midnightcrawler Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 184
Loc: England
Quote:

I recall a few years ago Glasgow police had a real crack-down on speeding with cameras galore. Problem was that many places had no speed markers and appeared to be ok for higher speeds. Also the cops were not showing discretion, just zero tolerance. I think little secret was made of the fact it was a coffer swelling exercise.




This is where much of the problem arises. Exercises in revenue generation by the police tend to cause the public to view the police and their motivations with disrespect and distrust. This in turn leads to an attitude on the part of the general public to ignore those laws which reduce their personal freedoms or choice.
_________________________
God only knows; Really.

Top
#350105 - 10/11/07 06:14 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Midnightcrawler Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 184
Loc: England
To quote 'Jeremy Carkson'. "It isn't speed that kills, it's the sudden STOP.
_________________________
God only knows; Really.

Top
#350106 - 10/17/07 04:11 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Midnightcrawler]
Joss Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/06
Posts: 567
"These speed limits are not just plucked out of the air, nor are they set to deliberately catch innocent driver (i concede that some do very much appear to be nothing but a trap, but only some). These limits have been determined using science, statistics, observation and experience, they are primarily based on independent studies, conducted by insurance companies, road assistance organisations, traffic authorities, and by national universities."

Perhaps.

But step back a moment and consider the actual implication of a "Speed Limit". In essence is approaches a government warranty that, IF you abide by this posted limit, use basically good driving habits and are not simply unlucky and get nailed by someone else, you will have a safe trip on that piece of road.

Now, consider the parameters for which that speed limit is considered safe. There are:

Driver's skill (Idiot, moron, normal, skilled)
Vehicle condition (falling apart, good, excellent)
Vehicle capabilities (nimble-ness, stopping, etc)
Weather (dark or light, wet or dry)
Traffic conditions (crowded, empty)
Location (urban or rural)
Road (poor two lane, freeway)

No look at this like the government looks at it. When they put a speed limit on the road, say 55mph, that implies you are safe and legal in just about ALL conditions. Since there is no separate speed limit for the dark, rain, poor car that's worn out, poor driver, in the thick of rush hour.... the speed limit you get is meant for those conditions.

So it's a 55mph limit and here I come.

I'm on my sport bike which is light years a better performer than any car. It is also in top condition. I'm trained and licensed to race the bike, which puts me light years ahead of probably 98% of US drivers. It is a bright, sunny, Sunday morning and not another car is in sight. It is a 4 lane rural road in good shape with lots of visibility.

Frankly, I'm safe on that road, under my conditions, as fast as I feel like riding. And I'm sure there are those who will tell me that I am unsafe over 55mph.

At the bottom line, driving is a personal calling, much like MA. People can ask why you do either and it can be almost impossible to explain. This often leads to the old saying: "If you have to ask, you won't understand."

Top
#350107 - 06/16/08 08:23 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
clubJWP Offline
Stranger

Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 1
trevek is right! the misuse of speed is fatal, not only the speed. some times when you really need speed to go to a hospital, office etc. when you start doing it for fun, that is the time when your mind becomes casual
JWP
------------------

Need traffic? Need SEO and backlinks?Social Media Marketing TurnKey Solution

Top
#423018 - 10/19/09 05:39 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Midnightcrawler]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Man! I was so right!!!!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/commuting/bal-md.dresser19oct19,0,6675834.story

"It seems the Prince George's County Council has approved plans for speed cameras and has designated the county Revenue Authority to determine the 50 school sites where they will be deployed.

The Revenue Authority? What are these people thinking?

Regular readers of this column are well aware that I have no objections to speed cameras and would cheer if they were installed on every road in the state. But to maintain the integrity and the core purpose of the program - safety - decisions on where to post such cameras should be kept strictly separate from revenue considerations.

Camera location is a matter for the police department, the transportation department, even the health department, but not the revenue arm of local government. The county's decision reflects badly not just on its own program but on others around the state.

Opponents of speed cameras were quick to seize on the decision as validation of their cherished belief that money - not safety - is at the heart of such programs.

"I applaud the honesty of PG County in finally admitting that it's a revenue grab and little if anything more than that.

"I'd prefer it if the counties just admitted what they wanted from these things and went on their way. No more cloak-and-dagger or lying. Just tell me straight up that you want the money," wrote one visitor to the Getting There blog.

Fred Mirmiran, founding chairman of the Maryland Highway Safety Foundation and a speed camera proponent, expressed dismay at the decision.

"This sends the wrong message," he said. "It's not part of revenue. It's part of enforcement."

Correct. And if the program works as well as it does in Montgomery County, it should be a diminishing source of revenue over time as motorists slow down. Local governments that are seduced by its revenue-generating potential will inevitably find it an unreliable revenue stream.

My preferred way of spending the money government takes in from speed camera fines would be to convert it all into cash and hold a big bonfire in a public park on the Fourth of July. That would be a wonderful way to drive home the point that the underlying purpose of the program is to take money from the pockets of speeders - as a gentle way of inducing them to stop putting others' lives at risk - rather than to put it into government coffers.

Unfortunately, that idea would probably run afoul of environmental regulators in addition to being a political nonstarter.

The fallback would be to channel the money from fines into stepped-up enforcement, including additional cameras, or for small one-time capital projects that improve highway safety.

But entrusting the decisions on how to run the program to the local counterpart to the Internal Revenue Service hardly generates confidence. In Prince George's, that agency has already assigned the program to its parking director, who according to the Gazette has decided not to use the cameras in work zones because they're too temporary.

Hey, Mr. Parking Dude, that's one of the main reasons for passing the state law authorizing speed cameras - to protect highway workers. Some of these county road projects can last for months. Leaving the county's own workers out of the program smells like a revenue-driven decision. That may be practical thinking for a meter czar, but as public policy it stinks.

The council should rethink this extremely harmful decision. If they don't, elected officials from Baltimore City and the other counties that have shown more sense in setting up their speed camera programs ought to stage an intervention to get through to Prince George's council members when the Maryland Association of Counties holds its winter conference in January.

Just keep referring to Prince George's County as "P.G." to their faces until they see the error of their ways.
"

What incredible gall! Safety my a$$.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#423025 - 10/20/09 02:27 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: MattJ]
Dereck Offline
Prolific

Registered: 10/04/04
Posts: 10413
Loc: Great White North
Red light cameras and speed cameras are very prevalent here where I live in a very small city (15,000 people). In the position I am in I am aware that the cameras are set to only record if somebody exceeds 15 Km/Hr over the posted speed limit. In September they ran out of room on the cameras but netted over $800,000 CAD from these cameras. Add the $700,000 that the bylaw officers caught, the month of September was $1.5 million dollars.

(Note: Our RCMP don't look after catching speeders by using traps; that is done by bylaw officers. Our RCMP only catch those speeders while driving. These figures are in town, not highways as that is done by the highway patrol sheriffs.)

The amount is so high as this is through some recent construction zones so the speed fines are doubled. The speed limit is 50 km/hr in these zones (regularly 70 km/hr without construction). In fact one person ran right through all three of the cameras netting himself $600 in fines for a few minutes of driving.

Can one speed and drive safely; for sure; no question. But misuse of speed I also believe is the problem. Now throw in other vehicles (parked or moving), other obstacles, bad road conditions, weather and the such, speeding becomes less safe.

More accidents will happen at lower speeds with in city limits then they will at higher speeds on the highways outside of cities. When taking my motorcycle course in 2004 you were taught at slower speeds for this purpose alone. I have been more near to accidents while driving speed limits within cities (50-80 km/hr) then when driving on the highways (90-110 km/hr). I have actually felt safer driving at speeds around 250 km/hr on my bike on a highway then driving speed limits within a city due to less traffic and more open to visually see my surroundings. But driving like that all the time would be stupid (yes, I was stupid) and you need to drive to your ability and to the conditions around you within acceptable limits.

And one thing I've learned from years of bike riding, it isn't me I most have to worry about, it is others around me. This goes for driving my vehicle as well.
_________________________
"IF I COME ... I'M BRINGING THE PAIN WITH ME"

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  Ames, Cord, MattJ, RazorFoot, Reiki 




Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Stun Guns
Variety of stun gun devices for your protection

Buy Pepper Spray
Worry about your family when you’re not around? Visit us today to protect everything you value.

Koryu.com
Accurate information on the ancient martial traditions of the Japanese samurai

C2 Taser
Protect yourself and loved ones from CRIME with the latest C2 Taser citizen model. Very effective.

 

 



Unbreakable Unbrella

krav maga