[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: der Mouse <mouse at Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
>Date: 2006/08/11 Fri PM 03:08:40 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Stuff fo' sale

>> My instinctive reaction on hearing people complain about speed
>> cameras being used for revenue raising is 'So?'.
>
>Depends on the grounds for the complaints.  If they are being sold to
>the public as being for safety but are really there for revenue, then I
>think the public does have legitimate grounds for complaint.

If they do reduce the average spped on a stretch of road, and accidents are reduced then that is fulfilling their purpose. That money is raised is a distraction to the original argument if safety is increased.

>> After all speeding is against the law so motorists who break the law
>> have no leg to stand on when they start complaining.
>
>> [...].  But if you don't want to get fined, don't speed!
>
>This would be more persuasive if it were more realistic.  There are a
>lot of pieces of road (at least in North America) where - at many times
>of day - there is, technically, no legal way to drive whatsoever: if
>you don't speed, you are going enough slower than the rest of the
>traffic to be guilty of some form of dangerous driving.

I fail to understand how youcan get a ticket for driving the seed limit (or just under it). No judge I've ever been in front of (as a defendant, IANAL) would accept such an argument from a prosecutor... That argument is nearly indentical to "It's OK to speed becuase everytone does it" - doesn't work for defendants, shouldn't work for prosecutors.

>I'm surprised nobody has overturned a speed limit based on some
>"everybody always ignores it" version of the "ancient custom has the
>force of law" maxim.  (Of course, this couldn't work in Louisiana or
>Quebec, but there are plenty of places that *do* subscribe to
>common-law principles.)

Well, most speed limits are (or atleast were) imposed by the Federal Government in response to a gas crisis back in the '70s - if you didn't have 55 as your top speed limit you couldn't get federal highway funds...

I would *love* to see an absolute crack down on folks that talk on cell phones while driving (without handsfree). It is illegal in NJ, and as I understand it, it is considered a primary offense, meaning it is sufficient cause to pull a driver over and write them a summons. Also, I'd love to see insurance companies follow up and see if folks were on their cell phone at the time of the accident, and DENY CLAIMS if they were breaking the law when the accident occured by talking on their cellphones while driving...

Maybe I should invent a camera that detects cell phone activity in the area and starts shooting pictures of drivers to see if they are hands-free or holding their cell phone.

A girl in a VW beetle was busy reading her mapquest directions, talking on her cell phone (hand-held), and nearly rammed the side of a car because she was doing all this while merging from the shoulder on to the highway and failed to notice there were other cars on the road...

Lionel
(I'm slowly becoming a cranky old man ;^)