yeah okay let's not start this debate in the chat thread. sorry i encouraged it.
someone can start a new thread about this stuff tomorrow when we've had a little more time to gather information and reflect
it's really a sad, tragic thing
Umm wow so that spun out of control quickly. I apologize if I was not so clear. All I was saying is that crazy people do not live in a vacuum. This particular crazy person lives in southern Arizona, which is not a climate particularly favorable to Democrats. I do not blame conservatives particularly, though I will note that this day could not have happened without their rhetoric. So umm, I think this will be my last post in this particular [Chat] thread, because when I said I have been ghosting this forum for a while, I truly meant it, and I really understand the need to not shit up a Chat thread with political crap. If you guys want to start another thread about this event I will try to explain my reasoning in it, but right now its 4:30 AM where I live and I am on drink #5 so it would be best if I tried to post when I am a bit more sober.
Also... our Chiropteran overlords. They are more relevant to Human evolution than perhaps you know.
Blacktron on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
Speeding is pretty expensive here too. If I was like 10kph over the limit it could easily be like 400 dollars. But I suspect that I was only very slightly speeding.
Speeding is pretty expensive here too. If I was like 10kph over the limit it could easily be like 400 dollars. But I suspect that I was only very slightly speeding.
This is why I leave my GPS active, but not set to give directions (I know the route).
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
japan on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
So I checked the table and I'll most definitely be owing $300. That's harsh. My bad though.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Ours have to be signed in advance as well. They're blue and aluminum in color so pretty hard to spot when it's dark.
Putting them on sliproads and ramps is a pretty dickish move.
Other than that I've always been skeptic of the fact that they use a strong as hell photo flash, how good can that be during the night? Blinding the driver...
Hmm you can edit your own thread titles from the main subforum screen.
STATE OF THE ART ROBOT on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
There was a major blizzard yesterday while I was driving down from the mountains. I saw one car do a 180 into a rail.
And accidents happen mainly because people are pretty dumb. There was an SUV trying to overtake me 200 meters before the two lanes merged into one. He gained like 10cm on me every second, so he was extremely slow. So right before the merge I had push the pedal to make him realise that his car and mine could not occupy the same space at once, and I jumped like ten more meters in front of him at once.
If there is a long belt of cars going 30kph below the limit, it's probably for a good reason. And if you then try to overtake your way forward in a car that clearly cannot handle it, you're pretty dumb and should pretty much be shot and disposed of for endangering the public.
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Doesn't making the cameras plainly obvious defeat the point of catching people who are speeding because they think they can get away with it?
I'm sure there's some logic I am missing, and I understand that there was an opening to corruption there in some cases, but it seems like some issue with only having cameras that will stop people from speeding for a small window, then let them crank it back up again.
simonwolf on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
The commentators of the womens skiing events are pretty casually sexist. Referring to the competitors as little girls in various ways more or less all the time.
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Doesn't making the cameras plainly obvious defeat the point of catching people who are speeding because they think they can get away with it?
I'm sure there's some logic I am missing, and I understand that there was an opening to corruption there in some cases, but it seems like some issue with only having cameras that will stop people from speeding for a small window, then let them crank it back up again.
No matter if they're concealed to begin with, people will eventually learn where they are. All the cameras will ever be good at is slowing the traffic down from it's natural pace to the limit for a stretch of 100 meters. People who are actual speeding offenders - the ones that go 130kph on every road all the time - just hide their face behind the sunblocker and never get any tickets because of it.
The cameras basically suck at controlling the limits and will never be good at it unless there is a constant string of cameras to control a whole stretch of road (impossible to construct because one camera costs about 100 000 dollars). All they are good at is raking in an occasional cash sum for the police budget.
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Doesn't making the cameras plainly obvious defeat the point of catching people who are speeding because they think they can get away with it?
I'm sure there's some logic I am missing, and I understand that there was an opening to corruption there in some cases, but it seems like some issue with only having cameras that will stop people from speeding for a small window, then let them crank it back up again.
No matter if they're concealed to begin with, people will eventually learn where they are. All the cameras will ever be good at is slowing the traffic down from it's natural pace to the limit for a stretch of 100 meters. People who are actual speeding offenders - the ones that go 130kph on every road all the time - just hide their face behind the sunblocker and never get any tickets because of it.
The cameras basically suck at controlling the limits and will never be good at it unless there is a constant string of cameras to control a whole stretch of road (impossible to construct because one camera costs about 100 000 dollars). All they are good at is raking in an occasional cash sum for the police budget.
And potentially slowing traffic in certain accident prone stretches of road.
This sentence turned spectacular when you miss the "a".
Echo on
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
edited January 2011
Hiding your face doesn't seem like a thing that should be usable to avoid a fine, though. Don't cameras normally target the license plate instead?
I think down here they mostly use covert speed cameras in parked cars, or wheelie bins, instead of having a sitting camera waiting for people to learn where they are.
simonwolf on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
Yeah. Like the road I was driving on for instance, the limit is 70kph but everyone, and I really do mean everyone, drives at least 80kph on it. Even during heavy traffic - it's become the de facto limit of that road. That happens everywhere.
So during traffic the one thing that happens is that the fleet of moving cars temporarily slow down and then speed up again.
And like I mentioned, if the image doesn't display your face you can't get a fine from the camera. So those who really do want to be assholes and go way over the limit do so freely.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Hiding your face doesn't seem like a thing that should be usable to avoid a fine, though. Don't cameras normally target the license plate instead?
I think down here they mostly use covert speed cameras in parked cars, or wheelie bins, instead of having a sitting camera waiting for people to learn where they are.
It's a loophole. If they can't confirm your identity you can without any trouble claim that it wasn't you. You don't even need to help identifying who it was.
"Oh I left the keys in the car door so someone random must've borrowed it and then put it back. I didn't even notice the car was gone for a while."
They probably went through a few of these cases and then decided to not even try again.
Those cameras can be very sneaky on unfamiliar roads.
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Doesn't making the cameras plainly obvious defeat the point of catching people who are speeding because they think they can get away with it?
I'm sure there's some logic I am missing, and I understand that there was an opening to corruption there in some cases, but it seems like some issue with only having cameras that will stop people from speeding for a small window, then let them crank it back up again.
If nobody knows the camera is there, then it doesn't accomplish its alleged purpose, which is to reduce the speed at which people drive on the road.
In theory, you would think that someone caught by a speeding camera would stop speeding, but that doesn't happen. Particularly when, as they were at the time, people were being prosecuted for the likes of 74 on a 70 limit road.
The proliferation of speeding cameras is actually one of the little-discussed factors in driving up insurance premiums in the UK. Because people get caught by them essentially at random, it's broken the correlation between speeding convictions and increased risk, so rather than an insurance company being able to load the premium of drivers with a lot of speeding convictions, it's necessary to load all premiums because you're no longer able to differentiate a particular class of higher risk driver.
japan on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Hiding your face doesn't seem like a thing that should be usable to avoid a fine, though. Don't cameras normally target the license plate instead?
I think down here they mostly use covert speed cameras in parked cars, or wheelie bins, instead of having a sitting camera waiting for people to learn where they are.
It's a loophole. If they can't confirm your identity you can without any trouble claim that it wasn't you. You don't even need to help identifying who it was.
"Oh I left the keys in the car door so someone random must've borrowed it and then put it back. I didn't even notice the car was gone for a while."
They probably went through a few of these cases and then decided to not even try again.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that loophole doesn't exist down here, because the majority of cameras aren't signposted. Odd that they wouldn't close it on your end.
simonwolf on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
I don't see how they can close that loophole really. I mean they can always send out the fine, but since people know they can easily contest it, it won't work most of the time.
If it comes to court they have to actually prove it was you, and they can't without positive ID. Everyone may still know it was you, but you'd be innocent due to lack of evidence. Also they don't want to spend money going through this process, they want to rake in easy money by just issuing fines.
There's a limit where speeding becomes a jailable crime though and that's pretty different, since you'd be summoned to court anyway.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
I don't see how they can close that loophole really. I mean they can always send out the fine, but since people know they can easily contest it, it won't work most of the time.
If it comes to court they have to actually prove it was you, and they can't without positive ID. Everyone may still know it was you, but you'd be innocent due to lack of evidence. Also they don't want to spend money going through this process, they want to rake in easy money by just issuing fines.
There's a limit where speeding becomes a jailable crime though and that's pretty different, since you'd be summoned to court anyway.
Well, that's why it becomes a license plate issue as opposed to a facial issue - you aren't fining the person who was driving at the time, you're fining the registered owner of the vehicle as it was their responsibility. The facial thing would just come into play when the owner needed to decide "who was driving" and needed to give them the money to pay the fine.
Doesn't seem like such a hard loophole to close, just move the burden of payment from a face to a car.
I hate having colds, I get exhausted just sitting still.
Echo on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited January 2011
Yeah I guess but like I said, the owner will just say the car was temporarily used by someone and he doesn't know who. Maybe he "forgot" the key in the car door. That would be negligent of him but not at all punishable.
So he'd be alright, claiming someone else had done the deed.
Honk on
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Posts
Umm wow so that spun out of control quickly. I apologize if I was not so clear. All I was saying is that crazy people do not live in a vacuum. This particular crazy person lives in southern Arizona, which is not a climate particularly favorable to Democrats. I do not blame conservatives particularly, though I will note that this day could not have happened without their rhetoric. So umm, I think this will be my last post in this particular [Chat] thread, because when I said I have been ghosting this forum for a while, I truly meant it, and I really understand the need to not shit up a Chat thread with political crap. If you guys want to start another thread about this event I will try to explain my reasoning in it, but right now its 4:30 AM where I live and I am on drink #5 so it would be best if I tried to post when I am a bit more sober.
Also...
This is why I leave my GPS active, but not set to give directions (I know the route).
Speed camera warnings.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Who's next up for being a shot democrat then?
They were a massive problem on UK roads for a long time. The local police authority got to keep a cut of the fines from the cameras, so they would do shit like hide them behind hedges, or place them halfway down sliproads onto faster roads so they caught people accelerating to join the faster moving traffic but would move the speed limit signs so that the higher limit technically didn't apply until after the camera.
Now, they have to be flourescent yellow, clearly visible, signed in advance, and there are some pretty tight restrictions on where they can be placed. So it's got a bit better.
Ours have to be signed in advance as well. They're blue and aluminum in color so pretty hard to spot when it's dark.
Putting them on sliproads and ramps is a pretty dickish move.
Other than that I've always been skeptic of the fact that they use a strong as hell photo flash, how good can that be during the night? Blinding the driver...
Vote yes on legalised prostitution.
And accidents happen mainly because people are pretty dumb. There was an SUV trying to overtake me 200 meters before the two lanes merged into one. He gained like 10cm on me every second, so he was extremely slow. So right before the merge I had push the pedal to make him realise that his car and mine could not occupy the same space at once, and I jumped like ten more meters in front of him at once.
If there is a long belt of cars going 30kph below the limit, it's probably for a good reason. And if you then try to overtake your way forward in a car that clearly cannot handle it, you're pretty dumb and should pretty much be shot and disposed of for endangering the public.
Doesn't making the cameras plainly obvious defeat the point of catching people who are speeding because they think they can get away with it?
I'm sure there's some logic I am missing, and I understand that there was an opening to corruption there in some cases, but it seems like some issue with only having cameras that will stop people from speeding for a small window, then let them crank it back up again.
That's some stiff competition though
are you hard onough to push the deal to the climax
What I'm getting?
No matter if they're concealed to begin with, people will eventually learn where they are. All the cameras will ever be good at is slowing the traffic down from it's natural pace to the limit for a stretch of 100 meters. People who are actual speeding offenders - the ones that go 130kph on every road all the time - just hide their face behind the sunblocker and never get any tickets because of it.
The cameras basically suck at controlling the limits and will never be good at it unless there is a constant string of cameras to control a whole stretch of road (impossible to construct because one camera costs about 100 000 dollars). All they are good at is raking in an occasional cash sum for the police budget.
And potentially slowing traffic in certain accident prone stretches of road.
Pffff, hahahahaha.
:winky:
This sentence turned spectacular when you miss the "a".
I think down here they mostly use covert speed cameras in parked cars, or wheelie bins, instead of having a sitting camera waiting for people to learn where they are.
So during traffic the one thing that happens is that the fleet of moving cars temporarily slow down and then speed up again.
And like I mentioned, if the image doesn't display your face you can't get a fine from the camera. So those who really do want to be assholes and go way over the limit do so freely.
It's a loophole. If they can't confirm your identity you can without any trouble claim that it wasn't you. You don't even need to help identifying who it was.
"Oh I left the keys in the car door so someone random must've borrowed it and then put it back. I didn't even notice the car was gone for a while."
They probably went through a few of these cases and then decided to not even try again.
If nobody knows the camera is there, then it doesn't accomplish its alleged purpose, which is to reduce the speed at which people drive on the road.
In theory, you would think that someone caught by a speeding camera would stop speeding, but that doesn't happen. Particularly when, as they were at the time, people were being prosecuted for the likes of 74 on a 70 limit road.
The proliferation of speeding cameras is actually one of the little-discussed factors in driving up insurance premiums in the UK. Because people get caught by them essentially at random, it's broken the correlation between speeding convictions and increased risk, so rather than an insurance company being able to load the premium of drivers with a lot of speeding convictions, it's necessary to load all premiums because you're no longer able to differentiate a particular class of higher risk driver.
Yeah that would've been way more scary.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that loophole doesn't exist down here, because the majority of cameras aren't signposted. Odd that they wouldn't close it on your end.
If it comes to court they have to actually prove it was you, and they can't without positive ID. Everyone may still know it was you, but you'd be innocent due to lack of evidence. Also they don't want to spend money going through this process, they want to rake in easy money by just issuing fines.
There's a limit where speeding becomes a jailable crime though and that's pretty different, since you'd be summoned to court anyway.
Well, that's why it becomes a license plate issue as opposed to a facial issue - you aren't fining the person who was driving at the time, you're fining the registered owner of the vehicle as it was their responsibility. The facial thing would just come into play when the owner needed to decide "who was driving" and needed to give them the money to pay the fine.
Doesn't seem like such a hard loophole to close, just move the burden of payment from a face to a car.
It's a good thing I decided to put on clothes.
Also they keep sending me paella rice instead of risotto rice. Grumble.
You get groceries delivered to you? That is awesome!
I hate having colds, I get exhausted just sitting still.
So he'd be alright, claiming someone else had done the deed.
SOTAR, you are Honk's faithful sidekick on this.