This is just a deeply unserious response, which is disappointing because a number of people have put in the time and thought to respond to you in good faith.
Police Details, Cameras, & Enforcement Methods
- Thread starter HelloBostonHi
- Start date
- Status
This is just a deeply unserious response, which is disappointing because a number of people have put in the time and thought to respond to you in good faith.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,060
- Reaction score
- 8,240
When you guys start being serious let me know, because so far you've compared drivers to rapists and claimed that they aren't mature, stable, or well-functioning members of society.
No one has compared speeding to rapists. Pull up the quote. You've made up strawmen to knock down throughout this thread such as this and the punishing people for "just driving" thing while ignoring what the bill actually legalizes and how it would be implemented. Yes, some people have stooped to the level of discussion you initiated, but many people have responded to your baseless accusations in good faith.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,796
- Reaction score
- 8,851
I really don't think bigeman312's definition of speeding, above, was driving 1mph above the speed limit.
As stated upthread, I agree with your point about everyone speeding. But I also know that it is too common to be driving 70 on a highway, and yet have someone trying to drive 80 riding your ass. Yes, everyone speeds. But not every driver is an asshole. The issue is that a non-trival subset of drivers are, and that's not just a lifestyle critique, it's dangerous.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,060
- Reaction score
- 8,240
Baseless accusations? They're direct quotes! The post I'm responding to says that "At any rate, that’s a distraction. Vandalism, trespassing, speeding, and illegally modifying a vehicle to evade speeding consequences are all unacceptable behaviors and do not reflect a mature, stable, or well-functioning member of society. These actions should be strongly discouraged." The other post says: "That's utter nonsense. Just about every law restricts people from living a life they might choose. That goes from speed laws all the way up to things like rape and enslavement. Just because some people might choose something does not mean it's okay for them to do it."
I did not bring "rape and enslavement" into this conversation. I did not cast aspersions on whether people are socially-functioning. I did not say we should convict all drivers involved in fatal accidents of manslaughter "automatically". I did not refer to letting people "whine and snivel". I said that people are extreme and disrespectful to others when they talk about this, which apparently is somehow equivalent to all of those things, but I'd argue this conversation has proved me right many times over.
And I agree with you on all of that. I also think that the way we talk about these issues in this industry is often dehumanizing, condescending, and demeaning to people who don't live the vaunted "car-free lifestyle" and overly-confident when it comes to popular opposition to progressive polices. I get that it strikes a nerve when I point it out (it always seems to) but that's because it's true.
Last edited:
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,029
- Reaction score
- 4,002
That's just bizarrely wrong. The conversation is about safety. Nobody, I repeat, nobody in this thread is arguing that driving should not be an available option. People are arguing that safety requires some compromises and that it is therefore reasonable to be able to enforce these compromises.
Okay, let me address this one, because I am the one who used those words. To be clear, I did not in any way say that they were equivalent. I was critiquing your use of the term lifestyle choice to justify criminality. Pointing out that rape and enslavement could theoretically be justified on the same basis was not in any way implying that they were equivalent crimes. Does that help?
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,300
- Reaction score
- 2,205
Of course. I actually considered putting an asterisk and saying:
* I am referring to the excessive speeding that’s targeted in this bill, which is explicitly not in limited access highways and only for 11+ mph over the speed limit.
I assumed that would be obvious given the context of the bill being discussed and quoted repeatedly. Honestly, I still do think that’s obvious.
But when somebody is hell-bent on responding in poor faith, it does make you lose a bit of steam to engage in good faith.
Anecdotally, I drive (no it’s not a lifestyle) and I even drive above the speed limit (yes, everybody drives 70+ in a 65), but I never drive fast enough to trigger the tickets that would be given by these cameras. That is the speeding we are discussing.
@Equilibria you are not stupid. Please stop pretending to be. You know very well that nobody is referring to 70 in a 65. The bill has been quoted many times. Join us in better faith, please.
A reminder that we're talking about rape and other things because your original argument was indefensible and ignorant of the actual bill being proposed. You were not presenting these arguments in response to "how others talk" - you pivoted after this take was, rather politely, called out.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,060
- Reaction score
- 8,240
None of this is in good faith, and this conversation has taken a tone that is beneath this board, and I'm contributing to it, so I'm done. You guys win.
Last edited:
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,060
- Reaction score
- 8,240
My point. I'm taking a break from this site for the first time in 18 years, and it's because of you.
Ok since I somewhat started this whole discussion by bringing up all of the benefits of camera enforcement for non-car people, we should highlight the benefits for drivers too. Off the top of my head I can think of:
- fewer blocked boxes & better intersection throughput and flow of cars
- more consistent travel speeds between different cars, better flow of traffic, higher road throughput, less congestion and traffic (see https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/strategy/variable-speed-limits/#:~:text=Contrary to what one may,go conditions to a minimum.)
- better fuel economy from lower speeds (yes, driving slower saves gas) and better flow of traffic (less braking and acclerating)
- fewer high-speed accidents (car vs car but also liability costs from car vs anything else). Safer roads and fewer injuries and deaths
- lower insurance premiums from fewer claims and lower repair costs (low-speed accidents are cheaper, and less energy to absorb)
- lower maintenance costs from reduced wear and tear on engine and brakes, from reduced acceleration/deceleration
- less distracted driving as people pay attention to speed & red lights more readily, resulting in less road rage, fewer close-calls, etc.
- (minor) mode shift of other people driving less or choosing non-driving alternatives results in less congestion and traffic, greater ease finding parking
- fewer police interactions and traffic stops as officers are freed up to do other types of enforcement
- driving feels less "scary" so more people (elderly people, teens, people who don't drive regularly or aren't comfortable driving) can comfortably travel via car, resulting in greater mobility for these vulnerable groups
- maybe, just maybe, being a decent human and reducing the risk of killing someone with your car and dealing with the emotional trauma of that
All of this with the possible downside being MUH FREEDOM and 2) maybe SLIGHTLY increased travel times from not being able to speed excessively (again this is >10mph over the limit) and blow through red lights. However in city driving, the travel time is mostly determined by congestion + waiting at red lights, not the top speed you reach. The increased travel times from slower speeds and red lights could very possibly be offset by the reduced congestion/improved road throughput highlighted above though, so it's not even clear if this downside exists at all.
- fewer blocked boxes & better intersection throughput and flow of cars
- more consistent travel speeds between different cars, better flow of traffic, higher road throughput, less congestion and traffic (see https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/strategy/variable-speed-limits/#:~:text=Contrary to what one may,go conditions to a minimum.)
- better fuel economy from lower speeds (yes, driving slower saves gas) and better flow of traffic (less braking and acclerating)
- fewer high-speed accidents (car vs car but also liability costs from car vs anything else). Safer roads and fewer injuries and deaths
- lower insurance premiums from fewer claims and lower repair costs (low-speed accidents are cheaper, and less energy to absorb)
- lower maintenance costs from reduced wear and tear on engine and brakes, from reduced acceleration/deceleration
- less distracted driving as people pay attention to speed & red lights more readily, resulting in less road rage, fewer close-calls, etc.
- (minor) mode shift of other people driving less or choosing non-driving alternatives results in less congestion and traffic, greater ease finding parking
- fewer police interactions and traffic stops as officers are freed up to do other types of enforcement
- driving feels less "scary" so more people (elderly people, teens, people who don't drive regularly or aren't comfortable driving) can comfortably travel via car, resulting in greater mobility for these vulnerable groups
- maybe, just maybe, being a decent human and reducing the risk of killing someone with your car and dealing with the emotional trauma of that
All of this with the possible downside being MUH FREEDOM and 2) maybe SLIGHTLY increased travel times from not being able to speed excessively (again this is >10mph over the limit) and blow through red lights. However in city driving, the travel time is mostly determined by congestion + waiting at red lights, not the top speed you reach. The increased travel times from slower speeds and red lights could very possibly be offset by the reduced congestion/improved road throughput highlighted above though, so it's not even clear if this downside exists at all.
Last edited:
- Status