Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
Seems to work alright for fire departments.
They even arrive on scene faster.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
That line of thinking is operating under the assumption that a posted speed limit creates safety.
One only has to look at the statistics of the Autobahn to see that this is not necessarily true.
It's easy to argue that police enforcement "makes us safe" because it is seen as an obvious truth on one side and fear keeps any thought or study of the other side from ever happening.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
So because the encounter may be violent the employee can't be volunteer?
That doesn't make sense.
Unless all that downtime doing nothing for days or weeks and racking up overtime directing traffic on Easter Sunday is a benefit of the job for risking a violent encounter once in a blue moon.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
Where does the assumption I just want to break the law come from? This is another reason an adult conversation can't take place regarding this signage society. Any suggesting that people may be able to behave themselves is met with "you just want to get away with X" whatever X may be.
Electronic devices could actually improve on the "safety" claim enforcement makes. Disable a vehicle when an unsafe speed is reached. Assuming posted speeds are in fact measures of safety. As my post above points outthis is not necessarily true however.
Electronic monitoring may also be used to dispel the myth of safety in that real-time enforcement isn't likely. Not that it is likey now given how many cars there are compared to how many cops there are compared further to how many cops are actualy out ticketing.
So even without the real-time enforcement revenue can be generated in the absence of police through reporting of electronic devices.
Conceddingto such an approach all but nullifies the safety aspect.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
Taking my own safety seriously is enough for me. I'm not interested in pro-active harassment or regulating the personal choices people make with their own property and their own lives.
Even now police cannot prevent any crime. They respond after the crime has been committed. So as it stands taking ones own safety seriously is already doing more than even 100 million officers can do.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
He, ironically enough, was behaving as cops do. Proactively investigating and seeking out trouble.
Not what one concerned with their safety and security does.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by MattNC
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by MattNC
Where does the assumption I just want to break the law come from? This is another reason an adult conversation can't take place regarding this signage society. Any suggesting that people may be able to behave themselves is met with "you just want to get away with X" whatever X may be.
Electronic devices could actually improve on the "safety" claim enforcement makes. Disable a vehicle when an unsafe speed is reached. Assuming posted speeds are in fact measures of safety. As my post above points outthis is not necessarily true however.
Electronic monitoring may also be used to dispel the myth of safety in that real-time enforcement isn't likely. Not that it is likey now given how many cars there are compared to how many cops there are compared further to how many cops are actualy out ticketing.
So even without the real-time enforcement revenue can be generated in the absence of police through reporting of electronic devices.
Conceddingto such an approach all but nullifies the safety aspect.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
So you're cool with remote monitoring 24/7 and are willing to pay up when you violate the posted speed?edit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: grammaredit on 30-3-2012 by MattNC because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
Fatal crashes occur on roads posted 10 and 25 mph too.
Safe driving is up to the driver. A posted limit is meaningless.
Which means they are not there enforcing every limit on every road 24/7.
So then why aren't there more people flying 150mph wrapping themselves around trees?
Because if left to their own devices people opt to survive and survival means not behavig recklessly.
I can point to several roads which have posted limits that are far above what is realistically safe. Everyone traveling those roads go much slower. Should they all be stopped and ticketed? Should they intentionally increase to unsafe speeds to meet the posted limit?
Afterall, the almighty posted limit is the safest speed to travel at, right?
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by intrepid
That line of thinking is operating under the assumption that a posted speed limit creates safety.
It does. That's why you will see speed limits change occasionally. The Autobahn? Do a Google image search and you can see that no one could possibly survive the wrecks that you'll see there.
Accident Rates
Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2009). In fact, the annual fatality rate (2.7 per billion km in 2009) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (4.5 in 2009). Furthermore, a 2005 study by the German government found that Autobahn sections without speed limits had the same accident rate as those with speed limits.
