Dutch Police Use GPS Data to Set Speed Traps

Status
Not open for further replies.

AnUnusedUsername

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2010
43
0
18,580
1
If everyone speeds in a given location but accidents are no more common there (which obviously isn't always true), doesn't that suggest the limit should sometimes be higher rather than more harshly enforced?
 

pclee

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2011
45
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]AnUnusedUsername[/nom]If everyone speeds in a given location but accidents are no more common there (which obviously isn't always true), doesn't that suggest the limit should sometimes be higher rather than more harshly enforced?[/citation]

That would make sense for places not facing financial crisis and looking for every opportunity to increase government funds by squeezing the citizens. Just recently officers in L.A. won a $2 mil. lawsuit against the city because they were forced into ticketing quotas.
 

NapoleonDK

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
218
0
18,840
1
[citation][nom]AnUnusedUsername[/nom]If everyone speeds in a given location but accidents are no more common there (which obviously isn't always true), doesn't that suggest the limit should sometimes be higher rather than more harshly enforced?[/citation]I wish more people thought that way, and I've certainly asked myself the same thing... It's a two sided problem that needs to be considered in each unique situation.

For example, I drive to work about 45 minutes. I can take two different routes that, while not equidistant, result in the same travel time. Route 1 is two highways @ 55MPH and a freeway at 65MPH. I drive 62-63MPH on the highway and 73-75 on the freeway. Route 2 is all country roads. One 15-mile stretch in particular has just been repaved and widened, but carries a 45MPH limit. I might restrict myself to 53-55 on this road, but seriously it should be 55 at least!
 

UmeNNis

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
41
0
18,590
1
[citation][nom]AnUnusedUsername[/nom]If everyone speeds in a given location but accidents are no more common there (which obviously isn't always true), doesn't that suggest the limit should sometimes be higher rather than more harshly enforced?[/citation]
No. This would mean our government would have to be looking out for our best interests (news flash: rarely if ever the case)
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
338
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]bsbsbsbs[/nom]Why don't people just slow down. Speed Kills.[/citation]
Speed does not kill...at least not the speeds cars travel at. What kills is idiots that think they have to text and drive....eat and drive....drink and drive....put on makeup while driving...browse the internet on their smartphone while driving....I think you get the picture. Sudden stops also kill.....but speed itself, does not.

[citation][nom]AnUnusedUsername[/nom]If everyone speeds in a given location but accidents are no more common there (which obviously isn't always true), doesn't that suggest the limit should sometimes be higher rather than more harshly enforced?[/citation]
Nope....fewer accidents doesn't mean the speed limit needs to be increased. The idea behind speed limits is to limit the number of speed related accidents.
 

mman74

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2006
210
0
18,830
0
Speed kills. Anyone who says otherwise is either a moron or is actually being pedantic and what they actually mean is only hitting pedestrians at speed is what kills.
Fact - more people die getting hit at 40 mph than at 30. At 20 mph the majority survive. So whilst speed doesn't kill - you are right, hitting people at speed kills.
So the point is I will let you speed, if you sign a gaurantee that you will not hit anyone at speed. If you do and they get killed, you immediately plead guilty to vehicular manslaughter and they lock you up and throw away the key. Anyone that kills anyone whilst keeping within the speed limit I will accept as a genuine accident.
End of.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@mman74
So if someone was traveling at 10 mph on a 55 mph road and killed a pedestrian because he was texting rather than paying attention to the road, you'll accept if he said it was a genuine accident (not seeing the pedestrian) since it was speed that killed him and not his stupidity? K thought so.
 

mman74

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2006
210
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]mman_mman_mman[/nom]@mman74So if someone was traveling at 10 mph on a 55 mph road and killed a pedestrian because he was texting rather than paying attention to the road, you'll accept if he said it was a genuine accident (not seeing the pedestrian) since it was speed that killed him and not his stupidity? K thought so.[/citation]

No I won't. Now you are being pedantic again.
Just like if he hit him at 10mph and got off his car and finished him off with a gun, I wouldn't hold the person blameless either. Just as if he hit him with 10mph whilst he was having sex behind the wheel, again I wouldn't hold him blameless.
My point is, if you are a greiving relative and a speed limit was in place but a person knowingly and deliberately ignored it for their own benefit (and if you are going to deliberately ignore the law - why not go whatever speed YOU feel YOU like), and possibly as a result whether rightly or wrongly your speed was a contributing factor - ceteris parabis - all things remaining equal (no texting, no guys with shotguns, no wheel sex), you are going to have a much harder time coming to terms with their death than if you knew the driver was going at what they genuinely felt was a safe and legal speed. We are not experts, we expect that the speed limits in place are their for a reason and they are there by law. If you think they are too low go and petition for them to be raised, but you stick to them or do you choose only to follow the laws you want, because if you choose not to follow speed limits then you are basically saying you will go at whatever speed YOU want.
Now if you are indeed a greiving relative, I welcome hearing your feedback. However, if you only want to go fast because you then spend less time driving to work, I will take your comments with a pinch of salt.
 

johnny_2bags

Distinguished
Jan 31, 2010
10
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]I hope TomTom loses their shirt on this one.[/citation]

Or at least half their installed base, just to start with. Nothing like hitting them where it hurts. Any company who collaborates with the government to track citizen behavior deserves to go under immediately. Dirtbags.
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
428
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]NapoleonDK[/nom]I can take two different routes that, while not equidistant, result in the same travel time. Route 1 is two highways @ 55MPH and a freeway at 65MPH. I drive 62-63MPH on the highway and 73-75 on the freeway. Route 2 is all country roads. One 15-mile stretch in particular has just been repaved and widened, but carries a 45MPH limit. I might restrict myself to 53-55 on this road, but seriously it should be 55 at least![/citation]
Have you tried taking that cutoff road just before the old Johnson place? Seriously, It will shave at least 6 minutes off your drive time because you can avoid the 2 traffic lights before Mulberry Lane.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
i hate cops, mainly because i never saw one do its job of protecting people, but instead harassing innocent people.

they even at one point moved a speed limit sign 300yards down a road, told no one, and had 4 officers stationed there for 4 weeks to get everyone who was "speeding". the road that was 55mph for 20+ years got 1000 feet of road taken away and made slower, all in all there wasnt a period of more than 5 minutes there wasnt lights flashing. and here is the sick part. they waited till you got to around where the sign use to be before pulling you over, as to not spook more potential money coming into town.

where i live cops are a joke. and EVERYONE here knows it, and despises them for it.
 

jskilnyk

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2010
35
0
18,580
0
While I don't think speed is the best idea in the world, it has been long time since a company has said "If our customers don't like it we don't like it." Been a while were a company gave a damn about its customers.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Speed doesn't kill ... Acceleration whether positive or negative kills
 

archange

Distinguished
May 7, 2007
128
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]bsbsbsbs[/nom]Why don't people just slow down. Speed Kills.[/citation]

Apparently, so does boredom...

Seriously, nice hight tech solution for increasing police income... Man, if something can turn for the worse, it will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
Z Streaming Video & TVs 28
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 9
G Streaming Video & TVs 22
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 30
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 62
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 28
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
tuanmai Streaming Video & TVs 65
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 61
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 27
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 60
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 84
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 70
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 114
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 37
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 58
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 93

ASK THE COMMUNITY