Well Said

They tried to put a bunch of those in around Calgary.  Within a few months they gave up.  Any that weren’t in heavily-populated areas had a tragic tendency to meet the wrong end of a .475H&H;monolithic slug, at $4500 a shot.
It wasn’t the idea of speed cameras that bothered people, it was that they were set up in “traps” (areas where the speed limit was deliberately low--on one stretch of the Deerfoot Trail--Highway 2--out in the middle of nowhere the speed limit suddenly dropped to from 100km/h to 60km/h for no reason) and the appeal process was byzantine.  The locals knew where the “MultiNovas” were, but the out-of-towners didn’t, and who’s going to drive back three hours each way from Lethbridge to Calgary to contest a $250 ticket?  Which, of course, was the plan.  It was all simply a revenue generator and the peasants knew it.

Posted by  on  09/07  at  03:31 PM

Normally I’m all for speed cameras, because the lose of money seems to be the only thing that speedviolators understand ... and there are just WAY too many unnecessary deaths due to speed driving.
But with that said, the above example of how some smartass thinks up a way to “cleverly” take money from citizens is just wrong in so many ways - and should be stoped. Not by vandalising the machines ... but there must be other ways.

Posted by  on  09/08  at  04:36 AM

Speed Cameras are not there to slow down traffic. They’re purely designed to make the city money. People will always speed. They know that. And in fact, they are often set up to exploit this.

Besides, its more big brother. Do we really want that? I don’t.

Posted by  on  09/08  at  09:33 AM

The cameras ARE there to slow down traffic - and they ARE making city money, because people are too stupid to slow down. People will always speed - yes, because peopel are stupid. It’s quite simple actually.

About Big Brother ... I’m not really sure where I stand on that issue. I don’t like the idea that “someone” is watching everytime I walk out the door - but if “something” should happen, like a violent mugging, is nice to know that the evidence is right there, you know. I saw this piece about how violent Brittain has become, and they showed a scene where two kids were hanging out in the streets, and then suddenly three guys walks up to them and stabs them with a knife - one died ... thanks to the cameras, the guys with the knifes were taken into custody right away. 
But as I said - I’m not sure where I stand on this issue.

Posted by  on  09/08  at  04:20 PM

The CCTV cameras in Britain have been, mostly, a staggeringly expensive flop.  Reasons?  First, the yobs and chavs aren’t completely stupid.  There’s a reason another nickname for them is “hoodies.” This means the CCTVs are most effective for catching ordinary citizens violating some minor law.  For which they are fined.  Hey, it’s that income generation thing again!
Second, it doesn’t matter if they are caught, since the magistrates generally let them off.  (Check out Coppersblog for the whole miserable tale.)
Third, the policing situation in Britain is so horrible (it’s not unusual for there to be four...yes, four...street cops for a 60,000 person city).  Most of the “police” in the UK are sitting behind desks--the administrators outnumber beat cops 5-1 (7-1 if you count the governmental overhead).  And the beat cops?  An average of 80% of their shift is spent off the street, filling in forms or waiting for magistrates and lawyers. So if the CCTV operators see something, chances are there is no cop to go there...or they get there too late.
Finally, the operators are only able to watch so many cameras.  The rest are used for after the fact investigation, which, most of the time, reveals the crime was committed by “a group of youths in hoodies whose faces could not be seen.” Useful.
Frankly, if I’m to be watched every time I walk down the street, I want a bit more payback than that.  Every time I get annoyed about our situation here, I think of England.  Of course, that’s probably where we will be in a decade.
As for speed cameras, they have a negligible effect.  The powers that be know very well they couldn’t set them up on a highway where everyone drives at 70 or 80 (the I-280 here comes to mind) and click off tens of thousands of tickets a day.  The peasants would be up in arms, and the buggers vote.
As for “speed kills”...modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than those of the sixties, even the eighties.  Practically speaking, if 60mph was fine back then, 80mph should be fine now.
But then, think of the lives we could save if our highways went to 30mph!  And if even one life is saved...right?
Hmm.

Posted by  on  09/09  at  12:06 AM

About your go at the BB thing ... I agree. It dosn’t work as intended, and provides only a false sence of security.

“Speed kills” ... well it does. And maybe the cars have become better and more safe, but the human reaction hasn’t improved what so ever, which means that if the speed limit was raised more accidents would occour - fairly logic, I would say. The only “good” thing, if I am to read your post correctly, is that people might not die right away in the crash due to the “safer cars” - they would “just” be vegetables for the rest of their lifes.

Posted by  on  09/09  at  02:50 AM

The German Autobahn has no speed limits (though the GW freaks want to change that) and has for many decades and it works out for them.

You are always going to have accidents. Every thing a human does involves accidents at some point. From climbing a ladder to taking a bath.

There’s no doubt many people die on the highways every year, but it is also a big country with a huge population, so those numbers are misleading.

The bottom line is governments love speed cameras because its a way for them to make more money off of us, by sitting on their asses.

Posted by James Hudnall  on  09/09  at  08:45 AM

Bob;
No, you did not read my posts correctly.

Posted by  on  09/09  at  10:06 AM

“No, you did not read my posts correctly.”

Then what DID you mean ... ?

Posted by  on  09/10  at  03:07 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main