A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Want a speed camera, create a school zone.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 5th 09, 03:49 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Arif Khokar[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

On Nov 4, 8:33*pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> "Dave C." wrote:


> > It's not a secondary side-effect. *Stealing money from innocent
> > motorists is the primary goal.


> That is your version of the truth based not on any fact.
>
> * * * * The reality is according to state statutes streets next to schools are
> school zones by definition


Looks like you lack basic reading comprehension. I read the statute
in question and it says no such thing. It appears that you're the one
making up "your version of the truth."

> and motorists are required to slow down when children are present.


The statutes do not make any mention about children being present as a
prerequisite for compliance with a school zone limit.

> No signs are required - this is something motorists are supposed to know.


Yet another example of you making up "your version of the truth" Both
applicable statutes note that signage is an explicit requirement for
school zone designation as well as notice of photo enforcement.

> * * * * The new law requires a sign to be put up when *the new speed cameras
> are at such locations that qualify as school zones and are used for the
> purpose of enforcing the school zone limit.


That is true.

> The camera can only be used for the limited time of
> day when children are present


The statutes in question make no mention about the need for children
to be present in relation to the times that the camera can be used.
Another example of you positing "your version of the truth"

> and the motorist must be going 12 miles over the limit to be cited.
> The citation does not count against points.


From these statements, it appears that you have read the applicable
statutes, but it's also obvious that you're misrepresenting what they
say in part. That is a form of intellectual, if not outright,
dishonesty.

> As far as I can tell all the locations where the cameras have been
> installed are locations with lots of kids present.


Cite? Multiple Google street view links of different streets would be
quite helpful in verifying your assertion.

> If you are driving 12 miles over the limit in front of an elementary
> school when children are present I wouldn't call you an innocent
> motorist.


Except that the system can issue citations when children are not
present. It's quite obvious that you're nothing more than an
intellectual charlatan.
Ads
  #22  
Old November 5th 09, 04:55 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
gpsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,233
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

On Nov 4, 5:19*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
>
> Simple question: if the school speed zones that are being instituted
> were actually necessary, why didn't the already exist?


You're right, that is simple.

"The existence of x is evidence there is no need for y."

Nice one.

Official perspectives:

"From 2005 through 2007 there were 1,794 speed-related traffic
accidents within a half-mile radius of public and non-public schools
in Baltimore County, excluding major highways."
http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...boutspeed.html

Whether or not one might agree these crashes were speed related, that
seems a ****load of crashes within 1/2 mile of schools in a single
county even assuming that poorly described time period covers 3 full
years.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...ras/index.html

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...peedstats.html

Let's briefly examine some of thenewspaper.com "report":

<q>Maryland cities will create brand new "school zones" in an attempt
to issue speed camera tickets on roads that previously had no need of
the designation.</q>

Obviously they not "creating" "brand new" school zones but are in fact
merely extending those that already exist to their legal limits in
accordance with state law as it regards proximity to schools.

<q>Previously had no need<></q> is a baseless assumption. Perhaps the
need was long obvious but slow to be adopted.

<q>The city's plan is to take a number of roads that are within the
legally required distance to a school but are in areas where children
do not regularly walk.</q>

Children don't "regularly" *walk* there?

I wonder, do these children regularly drive there... ride in buses, or
Mom-mobiles, bicycle there, or skateboard?

What is this vague, nondescript "regularly"? Sounds bad, as it seems
to be intended, but in this context obviously covers a pretty wide and
undefined spectrum and so is essentially meaningless... other than to
strongly imply the writer is so stupid as to suggest there could be no
need for reductions of velocity because vehicles present absolutely no
hazard to others unless they're afoot.

Actually, it does not seem unreasonable to extrapolate from that
opinion that the writer considers operating motor vehicles exactly as
so many of the nearly perfectly ignorant: "perfectly safe".

School zones and nearby areas experience "regular" and "irregular"
periods of high traffic, often far and above the capacity of the
streets where they are located. Much of this traffic presumably
consists of new drivers for whom vehicle crashes are reportedly "the"
leading cause of death:

"Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens,
accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group." <16
to 19>.
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...factsheet.html

If one is a relatively accurate observer of the less obvious effects
of higher velocities on other traffic (and the widespread tendencies
of many drivers to play "close the gap with the preceding vehicle
which may be exceeding the SL x 15 mph") they might be able to imagine
the difficulty and hazards those practices can create for those
wishing to exit a school parking lot, and especially those wishing to
turn L.

As an anecdotal aside, I would estimate the average speed (~15
vehicles) past the house during Trick or Treat hours last Sat., with
the sidewalks, yards, driveways and street crowded (Halloween = street
party around here), with parents pushing strollers (the sidewalks and
street are under construction for NG upgrades, and the sidewalks are
in poor condition anyway) (and the street is too narrow for 2 vehicles
to pass if cars are parked both sides) children dashing about willy-
nilly... at about 35 mph (25, unposted) with a couple approaching 45
mph, a few accelerating as if on a freeway entrance ramp, and one of
those most egregious offenders also exhibiting the "dead ahead stare"
with a cell phone stuck to what could only be his vacuous head.
-----

- gpsman
  #23  
Old November 5th 09, 05:58 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 671
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

"Brent" > wrote in message
...

[snip...]

> Because of the lack of due process in traffic camera tickets, obeying
> the law is not really much protection. At times camera operators just
> ticket people anyway or they rig the deck. (short yellows, hidden signs,
> etc and so forth)
>


At least in my general area, any time the deck is rigged (usually shorter
than 3 second yellow light) it results in bad public press for both the
contractor of the lights and the city. It also results in hundreds of those
tickets being dismissed.

The only other way they can rig the deck is to shorten the red light grace
period. As I understand it, some of the cameras that can record a full 12
seconds of video have a red light grace period of 0.1 second instead of 0.5
seconds. It's still easily beaten by slowing a bit on green and preparing to
stop on yellow, though some here might object to that as sloth driving.

In general, non-aggressive acceleration and legal speed driving will almost
always beat any red light camera where the deck has not been rigged.

  #24  
Old November 5th 09, 06:52 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Dave C.[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.


>
> In general, non-aggressive acceleration and legal speed driving will
> almost always beat any red light camera where the deck has not been
> rigged.
>


Yeah, it's too bad that the deck is always rigged though. -Dave


--
Dave C. >
  #25  
Old November 5th 09, 06:55 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Dave C.[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:55:35 -0800 (PST)
gpsman > wrote:

> On Nov 4, 5:19*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > Simple question: if the school speed zones that are being instituted
> > were actually necessary, why didn't the already exist?

>
> You're right, that is simple.
>
> "The existence of x is evidence there is no need for y."
>
> Nice one.
>


No. The existence of x is evidence there is no need for 2x. Get
your algebra straight, man. -Dave
  #26  
Old November 5th 09, 06:59 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Dave C.[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.


> >
> > It's not a secondary side-effect. Stealing money from innocent
> > motorists is the primary goal.

>
> That is your version of the truth based not on any fact.
>


You sir are ignoring reality. The fact is that artificial school zones
are being created to generate revenue from speed cameras. That's not my
assertion, I simply know how to read. -Dave
  #27  
Old November 5th 09, 03:21 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 597
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.



Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 8:33 pm, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote:
> > "Dave C." wrote:

>
> > > It's not a secondary side-effect. Stealing money from innocent
> > > motorists is the primary goal.

>
> > That is your version of the truth based not on any fact.
> >
> > The reality is according to state statutes streets next to schools are
> > school zones by definition

>
> Looks like you lack basic reading comprehension. I read the statute
> in question and it says no such thing. It appears that you're the one
> making up "your version of the truth."
>


Well i didn't read the statute. I only assumed the rules of the road in
Maryland are similar to my state.

However, what I did do was look at the map of New Carrollton schools
which thenewspaper.com claims is creating new school zones and if these
streets in front of the school have not been school zones then these
schools have never had any school zones at all in their vicinity. That I
find hard to believe.

At any rate nobody has offered any proof that the new speed cameras are
anything other than an attempt to protect children.

The whole picture that thenewspaper.com is painting that these school
zones were created out of thin air only for the purpose of trapping
innocent motorists where no children exist is clearly a fabrication as
is almost anything else you read there.

-jim



> > and motorists are required to slow down when children are present.

>
> The statutes do not make any mention about children being present as a
> prerequisite for compliance with a school zone limit.
>
> > No signs are required - this is something motorists are supposed to know.

>
> Yet another example of you making up "your version of the truth" Both
> applicable statutes note that signage is an explicit requirement for
> school zone designation as well as notice of photo enforcement.
>
> > The new law requires a sign to be put up when the new speed cameras
> > are at such locations that qualify as school zones and are used for the
> > purpose of enforcing the school zone limit.

>
> That is true.
>
> > The camera can only be used for the limited time of
> > day when children are present

>
> The statutes in question make no mention about the need for children
> to be present in relation to the times that the camera can be used.
> Another example of you positing "your version of the truth"
>
> > and the motorist must be going 12 miles over the limit to be cited.
> > The citation does not count against points.

>
> From these statements, it appears that you have read the applicable
> statutes, but it's also obvious that you're misrepresenting what they
> say in part. That is a form of intellectual, if not outright,
> dishonesty.
>
> > As far as I can tell all the locations where the cameras have been
> > installed are locations with lots of kids present.

>
> Cite? Multiple Google street view links of different streets would be
> quite helpful in verifying your assertion.
>
> > If you are driving 12 miles over the limit in front of an elementary
> > school when children are present I wouldn't call you an innocent
> > motorist.

>
> Except that the system can issue citations when children are not
> present. It's quite obvious that you're nothing more than an
> intellectual charlatan.

  #28  
Old November 5th 09, 03:50 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,804
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

jim wrote:

> At any rate nobody has offered any proof that the new speed cameras are
> anything other than an attempt to protect children.


The state itself hasn't provided any proof. For instance, it would be a
simple matter of conducting a traffic (including pedestrian traffic) and
engineering studies of the proposed new school zones in question to see
whether they're needed for safety purposes. A simple FOIA directed at
the authority in question should resolve the question. But, given that
the law has no requirement for any such study, it's doubtful that the
authority has anything like that on file.

In that case, one can only conclude that such school zones were
established without any prior objective analysis based on need and
safety concerns. Without such objective analysis, concluding that
establishing those new school zones is "anything other than an attempt
to protect the children" is suspect at best. At worst, it could lead to
drivers disregarding warranted school zone speed restrictions because of
the decision of the authority to "cry wolf" regarding the need for new
school zones. If that leads to the injury or death of a child, then the
authority is culpable.
  #29  
Old November 5th 09, 04:13 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 597
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.



Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
>
> > At any rate nobody has offered any proof that the new speed cameras are
> > anything other than an attempt to protect children.

>
> The state itself hasn't provided any proof.


The state isn't installing the cameras it is the local government doing
that. And I suppose you believe that big brother "state of maryland"
should prohibit them from doing that.


>For instance, it would be a
> simple matter of conducting a traffic (including pedestrian traffic) and
> engineering studies of the proposed new school zones in question to see
> whether they're needed for safety purposes.



According to New Carrollton some sort of study was done.

> A simple FOIA directed at
> the authority in question should resolve the question. But, given that
> the law has no requirement for any such study,


You seem to want the big brother government to impose all these mandates
on local authorities?


>it's doubtful that the
> authority has anything like that on file.


They probably have open to the public town council meetings.


>
> In that case, one can only conclude that such school zones were
> established without any prior objective analysis based on need and
> safety concerns.


You mean the street being in front of the school is something that
needs to be objectively studied and analyzed. Your beginning to sound
like a socialist pedagogue.



>Without such objective analysis, concluding that
> establishing those new school zones is "anything other than an attempt
> to protect the children" is suspect at best. At worst, it could lead to
> drivers disregarding warranted school zone speed restrictions because of
> the decision of the authority to "cry wolf" regarding the need for new
> school zones. If that leads to the injury or death of a child, then the
> authority is culpable.


You sound like a guy who expects government to solve all your problems.

-jim
  #30  
Old November 6th 09, 02:54 AM posted to rec.autos.driving
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,026
Default Want a speed camera, create a school zone.

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Nov 4, 5:19*am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> >
> > Simple question: if the school speed zones that are being instituted
> > were actually necessary, why didn't the already exist?

>
> You're right, that is simple.
>
> "The existence of x is evidence there is no need for y."


Nope.

The non-existence of y suggests there is no need for y.

>
> Nice one.
>
> Official perspectives:
>
> "From 2005 through 2007 there were 1,794 speed-related traffic
> accidents within a half-mile radius of public and non-public schools
> in Baltimore County, excluding major highways."
> http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...boutspeed.html
>
> Whether or not one might agree these crashes were speed related, that
> seems a ****load of crashes within 1/2 mile of schools in a single
> county even assuming that poorly described time period covers 3 full
> years.
>
> http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...ras/index.html
>
> http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/Age...peedstats.html
>
> Let's briefly examine some of thenewspaper.com "report":
>
> <q>Maryland cities will create brand new "school zones" in an attempt
> to issue speed camera tickets on roads that previously had no need of
> the designation.</q>
>
> Obviously they not "creating" "brand new" school zones but are in fact
> merely extending those that already exist to their legal limits in
> accordance with state law as it regards proximity to schools.
>
> <q>Previously had no need<></q> is a baseless assumption. Perhaps the
> need was long obvious but slow to be adopted.
>
> <q>The city's plan is to take a number of roads that are within the
> legally required distance to a school but are in areas where children
> do not regularly walk.</q>
>
> Children don't "regularly" *walk* there?
>
> I wonder, do these children regularly drive there... ride in buses, or
> Mom-mobiles, bicycle there, or skateboard?
>
> What is this vague, nondescript "regularly"? Sounds bad, as it seems
> to be intended, but in this context obviously covers a pretty wide and
> undefined spectrum and so is essentially meaningless... other than to
> strongly imply the writer is so stupid as to suggest there could be no
> need for reductions of velocity because vehicles present absolutely no
> hazard to others unless they're afoot.
>
> Actually, it does not seem unreasonable to extrapolate from that
> opinion that the writer considers operating motor vehicles exactly as
> so many of the nearly perfectly ignorant: "perfectly safe".
>
> School zones and nearby areas experience "regular" and "irregular"
> periods of high traffic, often far and above the capacity of the
> streets where they are located. Much of this traffic presumably
> consists of new drivers for whom vehicle crashes are reportedly "the"
> leading cause of death:
>
> "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for U.S. teens,
> accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group." <16
> to 19>.
> http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...factsheet.html
>
> If one is a relatively accurate observer of the less obvious effects
> of higher velocities on other traffic (and the widespread tendencies
> of many drivers to play "close the gap with the preceding vehicle
> which may be exceeding the SL x 15 mph") they might be able to imagine
> the difficulty and hazards those practices can create for those
> wishing to exit a school parking lot, and especially those wishing to
> turn L.
>
> As an anecdotal aside, I would estimate the average speed (~15
> vehicles) past the house during Trick or Treat hours last Sat., with
> the sidewalks, yards, driveways and street crowded (Halloween = street
> party around here), with parents pushing strollers (the sidewalks and
> street are under construction for NG upgrades, and the sidewalks are
> in poor condition anyway) (and the street is too narrow for 2 vehicles
> to pass if cars are parked both sides) children dashing about willy-
> nilly... at about 35 mph (25, unposted) with a couple approaching 45
> mph, a few accelerating as if on a freeway entrance ramp, and one of
> those most egregious offenders also exhibiting the "dead ahead stare"
> with a cell phone stuck to what could only be his vacuous head.
> -----
>
> - gpsman


--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speed camera put to good use... Brent[_4_] Driving 0 February 7th 09 11:57 PM
Ticket for going 48 in a 35 MPH speed zone [email protected] Driving 34 June 8th 07 12:46 PM
School Zone Brent P[_1_] Driving 4 December 11th 06 11:04 PM
Speed Camera... Dom Alfa Romeo 15 April 18th 05 09:25 AM
UK Speed Camera Nav Overlay BluDog BMW 0 October 25th 04 11:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.