Speeders BEWARE

[TAG UR IT]

^I like some of your input, there.

Speedbumps are annoying...and I'll still go over them at 45 mph if I have to. The car doesn't even notice it. I don't speed in residential areas. Doing that is just plain low. You are basically saying you don't have any respect for anyone who lives there....kinda like making a joke about your friends mom. You just don't do it.

The problem is, the officers do the best they can. Then, it's up to the courts. I have seen people arrested on their 13th DWI and they are still driving around on the roads. I say it's time to start taking their cars...for DWI's that is. Not for speeders. But, heftier fines for speeders after so many. Actually, the law already kind of works like that. You accrue points. After so many, it's costs in the hundreds to renew your license. They have all sorts of surcharges, etc. you have to pay. If you don't, your license is suspended. Then, if you are caught driving, you are booked for Driving While License Invalid (class B). Some people just don't care, though. Yeah...it's pathetic.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by Moose

but there are lots of places to "open 'em up", but, neighborhoods are not the place. I often take the SS out to the local interstate, bypass, etc., and "stretch his legs".

Umm, interstates aren't the place to redline your performance vehicle either. But we do it late at night when nobody's on the road, right? ...riiight

Originally Posted by stovt001

There are not enough police officers and related resources to post them at all the trouble spots. Speed cameras aren't perfect and can, like red-light cameras, falsely ticket someone when a live police officer would see that there was no offense. Who's to say the camera was calibrated properly?

There's no calibration needed with CCTV and it's all being recorded. Now some of you might think that CCTV is getting into "Big Brother" territory or just creating privacy concerns, but if an on-duty officer is monitoring a "troubled area" just as he/she would be if they were cruising it anyway and looking for speeders, crime etc... and can not see into someone's house... then I don't see the big deal. One cop could monitor a larger area, and get the whole offense on tape. Just driving through a neighborhood and seeing warning signs alerting you that you're being monitored and recorded would deter most drivers right away. Not impossible, but hard to argue with video.

And giving a license & car to a 16 year old kid is just plain stupid. Young males drivers (ages 16-19) speed more often than older drivers, so for this, states ought to restrict licensed drivers to 18 and up, period.

[stovt001]

Speed cameras do need to be calibrated, because they measure speed by taking two pictures and measuring the distance the car has traveled in between those two shots. If the gap between the time each picture is taken is wrong, then the distanced measured will not give the same indication of speed. As an aside, it has been demonstrated that if you travel at something well over 100 mph you can actually outrun the speed camera because you drive out of frame by the time the second picture is taken.

[Eisenhower]

k, I'm talking about CCTV, closed-circuit television cameras that record video- not speed cameras.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

And giving a license & car to a 16 year old kid is just plain stupid. Young males drivers (ages 16-19) speed more often than older drivers, so for this, states ought to restrict licensed drivers to 18 and up, period.

That's depressing...I got a car (crapper - but still a car) when I was 16.5, right after that 6 month period to get your license. It's bad enough we get charged to death by insurance companies, I couldn't imagine having to wait untill I was 18 to drive...how would I get to work...

Note: I "speed", only on the highways, and thruways, when either the traffic is going above the limit, or there is nobody around. I didn't do that untill I learned the road, and where the turns/hills/trouble spots were. The way I look at it, is, there's just speeding to go fast - which is what causes accidents, and then there's "speeding", when you're going faster than "you should" but you know how to control/be safe with your vehicle.

The issue I have is when people (Not you eisenhower - you said 'more often') argue that "oh, teenage guys are just terrible drivers, all of them speed, they are what cause the most accidents..." yadda, yadda.....It's not all of us. and after 3 years of completely SAFE driving: Yes I speed. Yes I've gotten into close calls (not always while I'm going fast). But, I've never gotten a ticket, and never had an accident, VERY rarely cut somebody off (only when they are speeding and I don't realize it), and never had to jerk/turn real fast to avoid a collision (I pay attention)....After 3 years, I should not have to pay as much as the a$$holes out there who DO do all the above things.

/off rant.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

That's depressing...I got a car (crapper - but still a car) when I was 16.5, right after that 6 month period to get your license. It's bad enough we get charged to death by insurance companies, I couldn't imagine having to wait untill I was 18 to drive...how would I get to work...

Note: I "speed", only on the highways, and thruways, when either the traffic is going above the limit, or there is nobody around. I didn't do that untill I learned the road, and where the turns/hills/trouble spots were. The way I look at it, is, there's just speeding to go fast - which is what causes accidents, and then there's "speeding", when you're going faster than "you should" but you know how to control/be safe with your vehicle.

The issue I have is when people (Not you eisenhower - you said 'more often') argue that "oh, teenage guys are just terrible drivers, all of them speed, they are what cause the most accidents..." yadda, yadda.....It's not all of us. and after 3 years of completely SAFE driving: Yes I speed. Yes I've gotten into close calls (not always while I'm going fast). But, I've never gotten a ticket, and never had an accident, VERY rarely cut somebody off (only when they are speeding and I don't realize it), and never had to jerk/turn real fast to avoid a collision (I pay attention)....After 3 years, I should not have to pay as much as the a$$holes out there who DO do all the above things.

/off rant.

I was part of the same statistics... well, I "may" have made the statistics worst but-but... we're not talking about me.:p It def is not ALL young male drivers- but enough to get the attention of the insurance companies, that's for sure.

But if you have a kid that is of driving age and you want them to drive the family Oldsmobile, you can monitor their driving habits using GPS.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

But if you have a kid that is of driving age and you want them to drive the family Oldsmobile, you can monitor their driving habits using GPS.

Don't they also have this OBD connector that records throttle position, speed, ect for something like 250 hours straight?
Never liked that thing, never had it...but thought it was cool.

[TAG UR IT]

Yup. It's the younger female drivers that get into more accidents than the rest. But, the younger males get more tickets and tend to speed more. I had a few speeding tickets...no big deal. But, I never got into an accident because of it. Come to think of it, I've been driving for 14 years and have been in three accidents. None were my fault. I was rear ended while at a stop light by a female in a Jaguar. I rear ended a female driving a van after she crossed a physical barrier slamming on her brakes in front of me. And...the last one where the 16 year old girl snuck out of the house while she was grounded taking moms car w/out asking (of course) at 11:30. She pulled out in front of me failing to yield on a left turn. What's up w/ the females??? hehe.

I think the age limit is just fine for drivers licenses. Sure, there's some bad drivers. But, the decision on whether they get their license or not should be up to the instructor who teaches them. There are millions of 16 year olds across this country who know it's a privilage to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway and these people play it safe. Just because some of them like to speed, doesn't mean all the rest should be penalized. I'd like to hook up that GPS w/a recorder so I could watch how my kids drive. Of course, that'll be years down the road.

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

k, I'm talking about CCTV, closed-circuit television cameras that record video- not speed cameras.

And I'm talking about Speed Cameras. Stop changing the subject like that. CCTV can't record actual speed, so you can't ticket the person using just that, and you can't catch them by sending the police after the fact.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by stovt001

CCTV can't record actual speed, so you can't ticket the person using just that, and you can't catch them by sending the police after the fact.

Yes CCTV CAN record actual speed, it's live video. You're still measuring an object's speed based on the time it takes it to travel from point A to point B. Grow up.

Originally Posted by stovt001

And I'm talking about Speed Cameras. Stop changing the subject like that.

I thought we we talking about viable options to catch speeders??? Wasn't it YOU that posted this:

Originally Posted by stovt001

So I appreciate any new ideas to catch speeders, but I just don't think this is the right solution sadly. Sigh.

So I offer up an "idea", you misread it and then have a cow about it.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Don't they also have this OBD connector that records throttle position, speed, ect for something like 250 hours straight?
Never liked that thing, never had it...but thought it was cool.

Unsure, but in this kid's case it could possibly help.

[stovt001]

Calm down Eisenhower, I was playing with you. You misunderstood me and had a cow about it. So everything is all square and even now ok? In all seriousness, I don't know if CCTV would be a legally accurate way of monitoring speed unless frame rate and perspective were very carefully calibrated. Its accurate enough to say "whoa, that guy is going really fast", but is it accurate enough to write the speed on the ticket being mailed to him? Maybe over a great distance, but you already have aircraft doing that. In a residential section, I don't think the cameras can be quite accurate or dependable enough to be legally convicting. I think evidence like that could be pretty easy to discredit, IMO, if it came to traffic court.

[Mr. Wyndham]

So...CCTV and Speed Cameras are two different ways of doing the same thing.

Now relax.

[Eisenhower]

Originally Posted by stovt001

Calm down Eisenhower, I was playing with you.

hehe! Yeah, I was just goofin' off too!