 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / March 2009Mississippi shows the way
Link: http://www.sunherald.com/185/story/1221991.html Extracts: > Mississippi's capital city will stop issuing tickets and collecting > fines when automatic cameras snap pictures of vehicles running red > lights, city attorney Sarah O'Reilly Evans says. > > The change in Jackson is being made immediately, even though a new > state law sets an Oct. 1 deadline for the cameras to be taken down in > the only two cities already using them - Jackson and Columbus. > > Several lawmakers complained the cameras were an invasion of privacy > and their constituents thought they had been unfairly ticketed. > > The bill passed the House 117-3 on Feb. 11. It passed the Senate 42-9 > on March 4. Let's look forward to the day when our politicians are able to see through the fog of lies about scameras presented by sinister lobby groups... > J. Thomas Ramsey is a lobbyist who represents RedSpeed Mississippi, > the private company that has a contract to install red-light cameras > in Natchez. Great! Sounds like the ideal chap to make an unbiased evaluation of the "safety" benefits of red-light cameras. > "These cameras save lives. And lives will be sacrificed for populist > politics," Ramsey said. Yep, completely neutral judgment - not a shadow of personal interest involved. > Link: http://www.sunherald.com/185/story/1221991.html > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > through the fog of lies about scameras presented by sinister lobby > groups... Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras and something I'd be glad to see lots more of.  SignatureAlex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" > Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras > and something I'd be glad to see lots more of. Increasingly those cameras are both red-light and speed cameras. Although I think that's a good thing, no one should be running green lights at speed or jumping red lights. >> Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras >> and something I'd be glad to see lots more of. >> > Increasingly those cameras are both red-light and speed cameras. > Although I think that's a good thing, no one should be running green > lights at speed or jumping red lights. I've not seen any dual purpose ones , but I wouldn't have a problem with them. Talking of cameras , on the A448 by Redditch they are trialing a new camera system - they are forward facing gantry mounted ones that seem to be a similar concept but different design to SPECS SignatureAlex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" > Talking of cameras , on the A448 by Redditch they are trialing a new camera system - they are forward facing gantry mounted ones that seem to be a similar concept but different design to SPECS in 10 years (or less) I expect you will have to keep to limits (or be electronically forced) everywhere. SignatureAlex (no.2) > > Talking of cameras , on the A448 by Redditch they are trialing a new camera system - they are > forward facing gantry mounted ones that seem to be a similar concept but different design to SPECS > > in 10 years (or less) I expect you will have to keep to limits (or be > electronically forced) everywhere. Driving will become even more tedious than it is now ! 70 on a motorway is SLOW to me. Graham >> in 10 years (or less) I expect you will have to keep to limits (or be >> electronically forced) everywhere. > > Driving will become even more tedious than it is now ! 70 on a motorway is SLOW to me. It is, the only answer will be to buy a car that insulates you from speed less and is less refined for fast cruising. SignatureAlex (no.2) > Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras and something I'd be glad to see lots more of. indeed, cant see any problem as long as they dont catch you turning right or moving over for an ambulance SignatureAlex (no.2) > > Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras and something I'd be glad to > see lots more of. > > indeed, cant see any problem as long as they dont catch you turning right > or moving over for an ambulance Didn't we do this only a few weeks back ? Sadly you HAVE to hold up the ambulance or commit an offence. Graham > Red light cameras are a totally different kettle of fish to speed cameras and something I'd be glad to see lots more of. I totally agree. As a pedestrian once in my town's centre, there's a set of lights that some drivers regularly ignore to get to the back of the next queue as quickly as possible. I happened to be crossing the road at this time on foot with the green man showing and some cretin drove up to me. I thumped his bonnet. I hope it bent. I also hope his wife in the front and kids in the back realised he was a particularly lousy driver. Graham > As a pedestrian once in my town's centre, there's a set of lights that some drivers regularly ignore to get to the back of > the next queue as quickly as possible. why do people rush and compete in town traffic, pathetic. SignatureAlex (no.2) >> As a pedestrian once in my town's centre, there's a set of lights that some drivers regularly ignore to get to the back of >> the next queue as quickly as possible. > > why do people rush and compete in town traffic, pathetic. It's a sign of the times.......unfortunately. Bod >> why do people rush and compete in town traffic, pathetic. > > It's a sign of the times.......unfortunately. I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the 60s. SignatureAlex (no.2) >>> why do people rush and compete in town traffic, pathetic. >> It's a sign of the times.......unfortunately. > > I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the 60s. Hmm, but I don't seem to remember it being quite so manic. Bod >> I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the 60s. > > Hmm, but I don't seem to remember it being quite so manic. I think road rage incidents have increased SignatureAlex (no.2) >>> I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the 60s. >> Hmm, but I don't seem to remember it being quite so manic. > > I think road rage incidents have increased Probably, but it's hard to make a direct comparison because I don't think that the label 'Road Rage' was spawned untill the eighties. Bod >>>> I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the 60s. >>> Hmm, but I don't seem to remember it being quite so manic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probably, but it's hard to make a direct comparison because I don't > think that the label 'Road Rage' was spawned untill the eighties. true and nostalgia tends to make the past seem better SignatureAlex (no.2) >>>> I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the >>>> 60s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Probably, but it's hard to make a direct comparison because I don't > think that the label 'Road Rage' was spawned untill the eighties. I'm sure incidents happened, we just didn't hear about them all through the media as we do now. Mike P >>>>> I wouldnt be so negative, town driving was just as competitive in the >>>>> 60s. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mike P I think it's fair to assume that because there were millions less of cars on our roads, that the percentage of such incidents,would have been far fewer. Bod >> As a pedestrian once in my town's centre, there's a set of lights that >> some drivers regularly ignore to get to the back of >> the next queue as quickly as possible. > > why do people rush and compete in town traffic, pathetic. Because they think that the more they compete against the traffic, the less they will be prone to being stuck in it. ISTM that the slower you go, the bigger gaps you leave, the better the traffic flows and the quicker you will get there. OTOH the more it aggravates the driver behind... >>> As a pedestrian once in my town's centre, there's a set of lights that >>> some drivers regularly ignore to get to the back of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because they think that the more they compete against the traffic, the less >they will be prone to being stuck in it. In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars ahead may mean the difference between getting through some lights or spending another 3 or 4 minutes at a standstill with more and more cars from other directions joining the queue ahead of you. >ISTM that the slower you go, the bigger gaps you leave, the better the >traffic flows and the quicker you will get there. OTOH the more it >aggravates the driver behind... The bigger gaps you leave the less cars can fit in any given roadspace so you actually make queues even longer and since the lights won't be changing their timings you just delay everyone even more. B2003 > In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars ahead may > mean the difference between getting through some lights or spending > another 3 or 4 minutes at a standstill with more and more cars from other > directions joining the queue ahead of you. but you slow the flow by fighting other cars, so overall the tactic fails. >>ISTM that the slower you go, the bigger gaps you leave, the better the >>traffic flows and the quicker you will get there. OTOH the more it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you actually make queues even longer and since the lights won't be > changing their timings you just delay everyone even more. it will tend to minimise gridlocks, it gets easier for people to , for instance, turn right, so speds everything up. SignatureAlex (no.2) >> In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars ahead may >> mean the difference between getting through some lights or spending [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it will tend to minimise gridlocks, it gets easier for people to , for > instance, turn right, so speds everything up. I tend to agree with that. Bod >> In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars ahead may >> mean the difference between getting through some lights or spending >> another 3 or 4 minutes at a standstill with more and more cars from other >> directions joining the queue ahead of you. > > but you slow the flow by fighting other cars, so overall the tactic fails. This was my point. Those places where there are lots of lights, usually have lots of yellow boxes too. This is to tell drivers not to enter unless they can get out again. How often are they ignored, just to be one set of lights ahead? If you block others at lights and junctions to stay one car ahead you may be blocking a lot of other traffic too. Boltars dash to the lights idea might be fine in principle, but every man for himself ends up in one big jam. Outside local school at 3.20 every day is one big jam caused by traffic from both directions entering gap wide enough for one and they then all have to shuffle, reverse etc to get though. If they waited and took turns the traffic would be clear a lot quicker. >>>ISTM that the slower you go, the bigger gaps you leave, the better the >>>traffic flows and the quicker you will get there. OTOH the more it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it will tend to minimise gridlocks, it gets easier for people to , for > instance, turn right, so speds everything up. Slow is smooth and smooth is a lot quicker. >>> In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars ahead may >>> mean the difference between getting through some lights or spending [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Slow is smooth and smooth is a lot quicker. That's what she said last night (but don't tell the missus!). ;-) Bod >> Slow is smooth and smooth is a lot quicker. > That's what she said last night (but don't tell the missus!). ;-) Same principle applies, I guess. How the hell do you teach people though? >>> In a town with a lot of traffic lights , getting one or 2 cars >>> ahead may mean the difference between getting through some lights [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > they then all have to shuffle, reverse etc to get though. If they > waited and took turns the traffic would be clear a lot quicker. The old adage, "More haste less speed" is still true. > Link:http://www.sunherald.com/185/story/1221991.html > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Yep, completely neutral judgment - not a shadow of personal interest > involved. Mmmm yes, Mississippi, the home of forward thinking... Mike P > Link: http://www.sunherald.com/185/story/1221991.html > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > fines when automatic cameras snap pictures of vehicles running red > > lights, city attorney Sarah O'Reilly Evans says. Running a red light is FAR more dangerous than a few mph over the limit. What's your point ? Graham |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.