Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008
Speed cam tickets coming to Calif? Legislature is voting tomorrow!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ed. - 28 Apr 2008 19:54 GMT Tomorow, Senate Bill 1325 is coming to a vote before a State Senate committee. That's Tuesday April 29, at 1:30 p.m., in Sacramento. If it passes, it will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar tickets - to be issued automatically and mailed to you.
To stop SB 1325, call the Senators who are on the Senate Transportation Committee. Now! For info about the Committee, go to: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm#Action5 Also, phone the state legislators (assembly and senate) representing the districts in which you live, work, vacation, or shop. Their numbers are in your phone book's government pages.
Once you're done phoning the legislators, call your auto club and ask them to oppose SB 1325 (and any other speed cam bill that come along). If the auto clubs strongly oppose these bills, they won't pass. Phone numbers for the clubs' main offices are available at the link, above.
Speak NOW or forever hold your peace. Now (Today, and Tuesday until about noon) is the time to let your elected representatives know what you think.
Ed
Alexander Rogge - 29 Apr 2008 08:08 GMT > Senate Bill 1325 is coming to a vote before a State Senate > committee. That's Tuesday April 29, at 1:30 p.m., in Sacramento. If it > passes, it will allow SPEED camera tickets - also known as photo radar > tickets - to be issued automatically and mailed to you. Isn't it easier to simply increase taxes on driving? Almost nobody can exceed the posted speed limit, when it is set appropriately. But when almost everybody is "speeding" because the posted limit is inappropriate, the speeding-camera purchases will increase expenses, decrease safety and increase traffic congestion because of drivers who are going below the normal speed of traffic, and try to collect money only from drivers who are "caught" by the cameras. How about removing the underposted speed limit signs and increasing taxes on drivers instead?
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. - 01 May 2008 16:58 GMT > > Senate Bill 1325 is coming to a vote before a State Senate > > committee. That's Tuesday April 29, at 1:30 p.m., in Sacramento. If it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > only from drivers who are "caught" by the cameras. How about removing > the underposted speed limit signs and increasing taxes on drivers instead? I'm going to disregard the underposted speed limit argument here because a competent driver can control their vehicle at all speeds, whether at 25mph or 70mph (or the kilometer per hour equivalent speed). For those who have cruise control on their cars, this should be simple enough-- the posted speed limit on the road that is enforced determines the cruise control setting to maintain that speed as a maximum. For those that don't have cruise control it is still a trivial enough exercise to learn what throttle position keeps a constant speed.
Plus, with rising gas prices, drivers should be setting a goal to drive as slowly as possible, but also within reason (i.e., 25mph or an interstate highway would be considered ridiculously slow). To that extent, I have found by trial and error (i.e., driving various 4 cylinder cars) that driving below 3250 rpm in the topmost gear of a 4 cylinder vehicle establishes maximum fuel economy. Note that 3250 rpm in the topmost gear of a 4 speed automatic overdrive transmission tends to be around 80mph--already above the posted speed limit on many highways posted at 60/65/70mph. As such, the 65 to 70mph speed limit does actually put the speed limit at a reasonably good speed for fuel economy as well, and tends to put the engine rpms close to around 2750 rpm once the torque converter is locked up.
So as long as the cameras have a factor built in for speedometer errors (e.g., something like +/- 5 mph speedometer error factor), photo ticketing is the way to go to keep highways from becoming high speed racetracks. Yes, it means people will have to leave that much earlier to get to work, or wherever they are going. No, it isn't always necessary to pass everyone else driving on the highways (except of course, the 20mph under the speed limit big rig trucks that seem to overturn or jackknife with an ever increasing frequency daily and often don't keep to the first two right lanes on any stretch of highway that has five lanes on one side).
In contrast, increasing taxes on driving punishes all, even those who don't exceed the posted speed limit on a frequent basis. But, photo ticketing punishes the individual driver, per speeding offense... and that is the preferred speed enforcement method (IMHO) when there aren't enough traffic officers to do the enforcement.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 30 Apr 2008 04:12 GMT On Apr 28, 12:54 pm, "Ed." <edDELitor...@highTHwayISrobbery.net> wrote:
> Tomorow, Senate Bill 1325 is coming to a vote before a State Senate > committee. That's Tuesday April 29, at 1:30 p.m., in Sacramento. If it [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Ed What's wrong with punishing criminals, esp ones that kill innocent people every day.?
It's Americans OR Democrats - 30 Apr 2008 04:13 GMT On Apr 29, 11:12 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 12:54 pm, "Ed." <edDELitor...@highTHwayISrobbery.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What's wrong with punishing criminals, esp ones that kill innocent > people every day.? Cash cow that'll do NOTHING to reduce road hazards. Speed doesn't in itself kill, IDIOT drivers do.
Janice - 04 May 2008 06:54 GMT In article <cd02c500-1228-4cfb-8490-ef682ef458f9@24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> On Apr 29, 11:12 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Cash cow that'll do NOTHING to reduce road hazards. Speed doesn't in > itself kill, IDIOT drivers do. Plus the American *WAY* is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. These have no way of knowing YOU were the one driving the car, should be ruled unconstitutional unless they have face matching software that can match your fact to the registered owner of the car.
Day Brown - 05 May 2008 02:00 GMT > Plus the American *WAY* is that you are presumed innocent until proven > guilty. These have no way of knowing YOU were the one driving the car, > should be ruled unconstitutional unless they have face matching software > that can match your fact to the registered owner of the car. Well, OK, the first five are just to let you know that someone has been speeding with your car. Now, if there's six, seems like you'd have some explaining to do.
But does anyone here really think that anything said here will have any effect on policy?
Janice - 05 May 2008 20:45 GMT > > Plus the American *WAY* is that you are presumed innocent until proven > > guilty. These have no way of knowing YOU were the one driving the car, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But does anyone here really think that anything said here will have any > effect on policy? So in your mind a car is only driven by one driver? A car never has insurance for a father, a wife, and 2 kids, all legal to drive the car? If one of the kids drives the car the father is ticketed even tho their are 4 people insured to drive the car. And the father has to prove that he is innocent.
And I guess a husband and wife sharing a car just goes right over your head.
djay - 30 Apr 2008 06:19 GMT We already have them on the central coast of cal - don't tell me the local yokles were ahead of the Capitol?
> On Apr 28, 12:54 pm, "Ed." <edDELitor...@highTHwayISrobbery.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What's wrong with punishing criminals, esp ones that kill innocent > people every day.? Ed. - 30 Apr 2008 07:36 GMT They will be voting on it again, maybe in two weeks. Today (4-29) they were only able to get 5 yes votes, and needed 7. But they are allowed to try again. So please call everyone you can.
Djay: I know that San Jose had speed cams, but they got rid of them a year ago. Does someone else still have 'em?
Ed.
> We already have them on the central coast of cal - don't tell me the local > yokles were ahead of the Capitol? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>What's wrong with punishing criminals, esp ones that kill innocent >>people every day.? Eat the rich - 04 May 2008 08:00 GMT > We already have them on the central coast of cal - don't tell me the local > yokles were ahead of the Capitol? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > What's wrong with punishing criminals, esp ones that kill innocent > > people every day.? The central coast? I live on the central coast.
|
|
|