Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 09/09/2008 3:48:50 PM PDT by Clint Williams
Safety. People fly down that stretch of road.
Ping!
Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Both. We’ve had these photo radar set ups here in Campbell CA for over 20yrs.
Revenue.
They’re a lot more efficient than cops.
And as unintended consequences arise, you’ll find more and more laws being passed to excuse those consequences.
Power to the government!
I’m glad you posted this. KFYI Phoenix as been playing a news clip all day containing a 911 call from a “former” law enforcement official who said he was following a van that was weaving badly all over the road. The van was one of Arizona’s new mobile speed camera vans. The driver was stopped and later charged with Extreme DWI. The company providing the vans and cameras fired the driver immediately. ROTFLMAO!!!!! I love it.
they could put speed governors on vehicles, but there would be far less revenue.
...we place a high priority on highway safety,...”
I would then expect a very high correlation between camera placement and those zones experiencing high accident rates. (Note, I said zones with high accident rates {public safety} , not high speed limit violating zones - {public revenue}.)
Wanna bet what those correlations are?
I think the cameras are probably a good idea, but there needs to be some legal criteria for when, where and how they will be used and where the proceeds will go. In many ways they just makes good financial sense. Cameras are much more efficient and cheaper than troopers and they work 24/7. That could free up a lot of cops to concentrate on more serious crime. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone wants to live in a world with cameras watching our every move all the time.
all revenue.....just like the cameras at intersections....
You can’t possibly be naive enough to believe that it is 100% motivated by safety. It may be 50%, it may be 20 or 70, BUT ANY TIME TRANSFER OF MONEY IS INVOLVED, there are other motivations operating.
I recently got a speeding ticket and I think the officer had the radar unit set to readout in “kilometers / hour” instead of “miles / hour”.
Fine, have the safety and the cameras, but no revenue that doesn’t go directly into roads.
If it was really about safety, why did the cities cancel the projects if it was such a good deal for safety.
It is all about priorities.
And the priorities are wrong.
If it was all about revenue, they wouldn’t put the vehicles in plain sight and tell us where they would be and what they look like.
What percent of the time do you think it is acceptable?
The Right To Be Left Alone; Police As A Standing Army; Are Cops Constitutional, etc., etc.
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/2007_02_16_archive.html
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/2007_02_16_archive.html
Semper Bugger Off!
Dick G
~~~~~~~~~~
Well from a safety standpoint (correct me if I am wrong) but the speeder doesn’t get the ticket until a later date. So they continue on with their speeding to where ever it is they are going. With marked police cruisers ticketing speeders, they make contact, determine if the person is falling down drunk, driving a stolen vehicle or sitting on a RPG. After getting the ticket they presumably stop speeding for a little while anyway.
So...I am going to go out on a limb and vote “revenue”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.