From: Ross A. Finlayson (raf@tiki-lounge.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 00:19:19 MDT
Cameras wouldn't reduce accidents. Are they going to be some kind of huge
inflatable airbag cameras?
It is true that some drivers have bad driving habits and they, along with 16-18
year olds, and various drunk people, are the most likely to cause accidents. (I
have very good driving skills and habits, in my opinion).
I don't run red lights, even when there is no one there. That's pointless when
no one is there, but it's not a bad habit to observe the traffic signals. In
terms of driving speed, I am normally aware of the posted speed limits. I don't
engage in road rage nor cutoff others, and I endeavor to look out for others
while highway driving as I pass them.
In terms of truck rigs, they have a longer stopping and starting time and some
blind spots.
Consider a twenty mile radius around any major metropolitan area, and say that
for surprise one day every time a driver passed the posted speed limit on any
road, that they were fined. (As an aside, the winning strategy would be to only
pass the posted speed rate once and maintain a higher rate of speed, or to
actually not speed). First of all, a large variety of government workers, police
officers, nuns, and little old ladies would receive fines. Second, 95+% of all
other drivers would. There would be huge negative feedback. Next, monitor every
lane change and turn for appropriate signalling. That is ludicrous.
I have digressed from the point that monitoring wouldn't reduce accidents. A
record might serve after-the-fact to establish liability for an accident in
addition to the drivers' and passengers words along with smears on the pavement,
which might justify rigs sporting cameras, but there's no reason for the
government to do it, and thus for TAXPAYERS to PAY for it.
I think dangerous driving would be better served by education programs to
drivers. For example, how about a "Drive Safely Campaign" and a "War on Bad
Drivers", seeing as how automobile accidents cause "some 40K people" to die per
year, that being "some 40K people" more than have ever from marijuana alone.
Do red-light cameras on downtown DC intersections reduce accidents? No, they
make money for Lockheed Martin and press for monitorists. Do they infringe
rights? Arguably, yes.
So I do agree that traffic accidents are bad and that they are moreso caused by
passenger automobiles than freight trucks, but my opinion is that monitoring
would not decrease accidents.
EvMick@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/4/00 12:02:36 AM Central Daylight Time, spike66@ibm.net
> writes:
>
> > Im interested in how the cryonics crowd will see this red light camera
> > business. If one is young, healthy, and has no dangerous habits, the
> > most likely cause of death (seems to me anyway) is being T-boned
> > in an intersection by some crazed yahoo burning the red light.
>
> The way some (many) people drive is a dangerous habit. I would support
> cameras in many more highway locations other than just redlights.
>
> I speak from experience......you would not BELEIVE what i see on a daily
> basis.<sigh>
>
> Oh yeah.
>
> some stats.(all approximations)
>
> some 40K people die each year (last year....lowest in history) on the highway
> (1.5 per 100M miles driven)
>
> some 5K died in truck/auto accidents.
>
> some 70% of all truck/auto accidents are the fault of the auto (according to
> the Federal DOT).
>
> The new federal hours of service regulations (which will disrupt "life as we
> know it" more than Y2K's worst nightmare ever would....city dwellers take
> note.) is aimed at reducing that 5K by half....
>
> Not possible as I veiw the numbers....
>
> 5k -(.7(5k))=1500 vs .5(5k)=2500
>
> neglecting to consider that not all (even many) truck/auto accidents involve
> fatigue.....
>
> <sigh>
>
> Once more......"Ready...Fire!.......................Aim"..
>
> EvMick
> Kansas..
>
> EvMick
> Kansas
As an aside completely not about this, Xiaoguang Li's post "neurohacking?" is
very interesting.
About this, the subject being "law enforcement for profit", law enforcement based
on any direct profit subverts justice and is wrong. Law enforcement should be
for the people and the peace, only, and while this yields indirect profit to all,
any direct form of payoff to enforcers yields corruption.
About log files, there are many log files. They can be subpoenad just like any
other form of information, unless they belong to the government they aren't
property of the government. It should be easy, just look how easy it is to get
e-mail from the executive.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:25 MST