Leon Speed

When you drive here, scanning the road ahead for (hidden) cams becomes second nature.

NoVector

For all your shopping needs: http://www.radarbusters.com

- Radar Detectors
- Laser Jammers Laser Accessories
- Photo Radar GPS Speed Camera Detectors
- License Plate Shields
- All Photo Radar
- Motorcycle Radar Detectors Motorcycle Accessories
- Radar Detector Accessories

No affiliation.

blown 87

We had a really good save with a Escort 9500Ci Saturday, a SO car tried to get a laser lock on my car which was in the lead, it was a true save.
He hit me for about 4 seconds while I was slowing down to a little over the limit, several Porsche's behind me, I really though he was going to come after us any way, even with out a laser speed on us.

SanDiego928

My buddy in AZ just told me they removed these cameras in his state because of vandalizing of said cameras and the rental car companies refused to pass on driver information on who rented their cars.

I love it!!!!!!!!!!

anonymousagain

Rarely see an accident caused by a driver going faster than the posted limit...correct that, never have.

Accidents from lack of driving ability or skill = yes.
Accidents from lack of driver on-road education/testing = yes.
Accidents from being self-distracted = yes.
Accidents from being under the influence = yes.

Accidents reduction/prevention is not part of the equation. If it were, clearly actions would be directed toward adoption of more stringent license testing requirements.

This is pure and simple revenue generation, that unfortunately won't even go directly to the law enforcement agencies that desperately need funding. Revenues will get peanut-butter spread across multiple government departments and ultimately fund re-paving of roads that don't need it.

Speedtoys

"Rarely see an accident caused by a driver going faster than the posted limit...correct that, never have."
---

What an odd black hole you must live in.


You'll probably find three in the news in the BayArea before Monday morning...and one fatality..50/50 on that one.


"This is pure and simple revenue generation, that unfortunately won't even go directly to the law enforcement agencies that desperately need funding. Revenues will get peanut-butter spread across multiple government departments and ultimately fund re-paving of roads that don't need it. "
---
Which is to say it goes directly to the local governments that pay for the police force it wants.



YOUR actions are revenue generation. Please..correct me if you've ever gotten a 75 in a 55..doing 50.

Bjbpe

Our non-interstate roads may be better than those in Europe. Not having been over there since 1997, I cannot speak to the current situation but I would rank Germany/Austria/Switzerland as #1, France as #2 and Italy as a very distant #3. "On interstate" roads we are a very distant second place behind Germany and possibly others. Hitler was a demon but he did demand the best for the autobahns. Whereas we have virtually no super-elevation on our interstates (thereby limiting the ability to speed around wide curves), the autobonds have steep banking where the curves are sharp making high speed possible. I had the Porsche up to 130 in Germany and cars were passing me.

Regarding the eye in the sky, if it is monitoring traffic continuously, there has to be an electronic signal so time to get your radar detectors out. Even at the age of 76 I still get tickets so I have my Valentine always with me.

ELJG

Except for a small but very loud minority everyone here in England agrees that speed cameras are there to generate income rather than for any safety reasons. They are rarely placed at well known accident blackspots and we do have the much improved version in many places - they are the average speed cameras which really do track you - photo taken and time recorded as you pass point A and then again as you pass point B and then your average speed calculated...

Lizard928

Jeff,

I understand your view. But it's a very very narrow one IMHO.

Traffic enforcement has NOTHING to do with increasing safety. Look at the stats, there are more accidents at intersections than anywhere else. If you put the police monitoring intersections instead of focusing on speed the amount of accidents would reduce as people would pay more attention.
The accidents at intersections are two fold. First those running lights, second those actually stopping and getting rear ended.
How often do you hear of someone crashing and killing someone at a stupid high rate of speed? I've only heard of one instance in probably 7 years up here. Yet everyday there are semis rear ending people, rolling, load loss, cars and trucks getting rear ended, t-boned etc.
Statistics show that the safest drivers are those who drive in the 15th percentile over the limit. They also show that those most likely to cause an accident are those driving below the limit.

tv

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...meras-20110727

jcorenman

I have only one issue here: Crashes are not "accidents". As you correctly pointed out, most car crashes are the direct result of something. That's not an "accident".

NHTSA did a report to Congress in 2008 which detailed the causes for crashes, statistically. They studied 5,471 crashes in 2005-2007. They studied each case and assigned a "Critical Pre-Crash Event" (i.e. the event that made a crash inevitable), and a "Critical Reason for the pre-crash event". (Hey, it's a guvm't study, give them a break...).

"Too fast for conditions" was 8.4%, and "Too fast for curve" was 4.9%. The big winners were "Recognition errors" (41%, e.g. "Inadequate surveillance", "distraction", etc). This appears to be a very carefully done study, with lots of good info.

What struck me, however, was that the words "Posted Speed Limit" hardly appeared, ever. It was not considered as a cause, not reported in any of the tables, and only cited in one example of a schizoid on medication who rear-ended a semi (at apparently at less than the PSL). And even "too fast for conditions" was a primary cause in less than 10% of the crashes.

And for this, we get speed cameras?? Gimme a break.

It's a good read, copy here: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF

Landseer

I worried for 3 weeks after a low pass through a tangle of expensive, exotic electronic sensors up here in Indiana. I learned later it was just some sort of high-tech deer warning system. Radar guns running beams parallel to the road, supposedly setting off a flashing red light if a deer wanders too close to the shoulder. Looked extremely expensive.

Then last week, 15 miles west of the location of this gear on I80/90, a deer took-out a minivan. Minivan however didn't stop the tractor trailer. 10 dead, 2 more on the edge in South Bend hospital.


Why do we chase after the wrong things in the wrong way?





Canvassing the road with ID gear doesn't seem like the answer.

JHowell37

Deer don't have checking accounts.

Lizard928

RKD in OKC

We had a public service announcement here in OK. It was a Highway Patrol. Basically said...

20% of fatal accidents involve speeding. 80% of driver speed. Slow down we are coming after you speeders.

Made me ask why that aren't going after that 20% of drivers causing 80% of the fatal accidents!