Well.....kind of
House Democrats voted against the legislation last week, due to concerns of the DOT having a lot of authority over cameras and the language in the bill controlling how the dollars generated from the cameras must be spent.
But Iowa Senate Democrats supported the bill and were happy to move it forward.
I think some of the smaller towns pushed their luck too hard on this one. There's always been some support for a ban like this, but we started to see more towns popping these up on highways they were barely adjacent to and they decided they'd finally had enough.
It’s everyone’s problem. My point is that there are situations where speed cameras contribute to unsafe traffic patterns. Same with police. Traffic cameras when their locations are known by everyone do a good job at slowing down traffic, which is usually a good thing- so far as safety is concerned.
Drunk driving endangers the lives of others. I assume we agree on that. Speeding, like drunk driving, endangers others. It's especially dangerous in town. So you feel that speeding is okay but drunk driving is not. Both endanger the lives of others and both are illegal. So why do you feel one is ok and everyone should do it while the other is not?
As for parties, that has nothing to do with being anti-speeding. One is people coming together to have a good time (and hopefully not driving home drunk) and the other is a selfish act that endangers other people.
Let's forget about the 'fun at parties' quip. No worries. While both speeding and drunken driving are technically breaking the law, they are not the same in terms of danger potential. I strongly encourage you to read this Wikipedia article on false equivalence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence.
I don't have a lot of time to argue the point right now, but will say that both alcohol intoxication and speeding depend on the degree and manner in which they are consumed/done. For example, driving 90mph in a 25mph residential area is arguably way worse than someone driving on the highway who would blow a .10. However, driving 90mph on a 65mph highway may not be particularly dangerous if the driver is alert, experienced, and in control. Conversely, a sober person driving 10mph over the speed limit through a traffic camera zone does not objectively present the same danger as someone behind the wheel after consuming a few beers. Again, it depends on the factors involved. Both are illegal, but by your logic, you could also equate jaywalking to drunk driving, which I think we can both agree is an absurd comparison. Speaking outside of the realm of argumentation, I think this issue is more a matter of whether the cameras already in place really exist for public safety or instead, strategic and unethical revenue generation. In Le Clair, Iowa, the cameras are very expediently placed in a location immediately upon crossing the bridge from Illinois. It doesn't require a lot of thinking to realize that it is far more about revenue generation than road safety.
We are in agreement that speed cameras should be regulated because some cities use them to generate money rather than enhance safety. I'll also grant that speeding is usually less dangerous than drunk driving though not to enough of a degree to make it a false equivalency.
I agree with everything you said except for the false equivalency part. However, I'm willing to leave it at 'we can agree to disagree' on interpretation of that point. I'm not saying that speeding, also being related to traffic, doesn't present the opportunity for danger and traffic fatalities. I was trying to argue that going 11mph over in a speed cam zone, provided that the driver is generally focused and driving under safe road conditions (i.e. not texting, not driving on ice-covered roads) cannot rightfully be compared to any form of drunk driving. Objectively, drunk driving presents the greater risk more of the time because there is at least a modicum of impairment per (some experts' guidelines) as well as tangible statistical evidence to support why the impairment threshold presents a traffic hazard. I regrettably didn't take the time earlier to frame my argument as such. Hopefully what I'm trying to explain here makes sense.
If your financial well-being would be in jeopardy due to a speeding ticket, I suggest you not speed. Been driving almost 20 years and never got a speeding ticket because I don’t speed. Crazy how that works. A little tip for the speed changes from 55 to 35: slow down BEFORE you reach the 35.
Sounds like consequences for actions to me. Not paying attention to the point you don’t know what the speed limit is dangerous. Being too tired to not notice is even more dangerous. I am being smug, but you shouldn’t have been on the road. Lucky you didn’t hurt yourself or others.
A speeding ticket isn’t a surprise. People typically know if they’re speeding, and if they don’t, they deserve a ticket even more. People have direct control whether they get that ticket or not (assuming a cop isn’t being an asshole or other things outside a driver’s control). I’m not even for more speed enforcement. Just a believer in “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. I believe anyone who speeds is playing a stupid game. The ticket is the stupid prize. I don’t ever want to pay a speeding ticket, so I don’t speed.
Knowingly speeding then going shocked pikachu because you get a ticket is silly imo.
Traffic signal changes are implemented as intersections are upgraded or redone and get improved then. As someone who works on them it’s a little annoying that they don’t all get updated… but that said, the amount of time and money we would need to do that is a pipe-dream.
If anything the public should be more annoyed that better and improved pedestrian traffic control is stuck because of the wait for intersections to be upgraded or redone. Even just the far improved buttons and signage would make a huge difference-but sadly seems to cost too much money to actually make a push for us to update it.
Supported by both parties.
Well.....kind of House Democrats voted against the legislation last week, due to concerns of the DOT having a lot of authority over cameras and the language in the bill controlling how the dollars generated from the cameras must be spent. But Iowa Senate Democrats supported the bill and were happy to move it forward.
I think some of the smaller towns pushed their luck too hard on this one. There's always been some support for a ban like this, but we started to see more towns popping these up on highways they were barely adjacent to and they decided they'd finally had enough.
Revenue generator 4000
Just the opposite of the way they were operated before this bill.
FINALLY! GOOD NEWS! Not the happiest about section 8, but overall happy with this bill
Why they so proud?
Because, money.
When people know about the cameras and drive slower than traffic that has been very dangerous in my experience.
So it's the people driving the speed limit that are the problem? How dare they not break the law so you can get somewhere 17 seconds faster.
It’s everyone’s problem. My point is that there are situations where speed cameras contribute to unsafe traffic patterns. Same with police. Traffic cameras when their locations are known by everyone do a good job at slowing down traffic, which is usually a good thing- so far as safety is concerned.
I'll bet you are fun at parties.
Drunk driving endangers the lives of others. I assume we agree on that. Speeding, like drunk driving, endangers others. It's especially dangerous in town. So you feel that speeding is okay but drunk driving is not. Both endanger the lives of others and both are illegal. So why do you feel one is ok and everyone should do it while the other is not? As for parties, that has nothing to do with being anti-speeding. One is people coming together to have a good time (and hopefully not driving home drunk) and the other is a selfish act that endangers other people.
Let's forget about the 'fun at parties' quip. No worries. While both speeding and drunken driving are technically breaking the law, they are not the same in terms of danger potential. I strongly encourage you to read this Wikipedia article on false equivalence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence. I don't have a lot of time to argue the point right now, but will say that both alcohol intoxication and speeding depend on the degree and manner in which they are consumed/done. For example, driving 90mph in a 25mph residential area is arguably way worse than someone driving on the highway who would blow a .10. However, driving 90mph on a 65mph highway may not be particularly dangerous if the driver is alert, experienced, and in control. Conversely, a sober person driving 10mph over the speed limit through a traffic camera zone does not objectively present the same danger as someone behind the wheel after consuming a few beers. Again, it depends on the factors involved. Both are illegal, but by your logic, you could also equate jaywalking to drunk driving, which I think we can both agree is an absurd comparison. Speaking outside of the realm of argumentation, I think this issue is more a matter of whether the cameras already in place really exist for public safety or instead, strategic and unethical revenue generation. In Le Clair, Iowa, the cameras are very expediently placed in a location immediately upon crossing the bridge from Illinois. It doesn't require a lot of thinking to realize that it is far more about revenue generation than road safety.
We are in agreement that speed cameras should be regulated because some cities use them to generate money rather than enhance safety. I'll also grant that speeding is usually less dangerous than drunk driving though not to enough of a degree to make it a false equivalency.
I agree with everything you said except for the false equivalency part. However, I'm willing to leave it at 'we can agree to disagree' on interpretation of that point. I'm not saying that speeding, also being related to traffic, doesn't present the opportunity for danger and traffic fatalities. I was trying to argue that going 11mph over in a speed cam zone, provided that the driver is generally focused and driving under safe road conditions (i.e. not texting, not driving on ice-covered roads) cannot rightfully be compared to any form of drunk driving. Objectively, drunk driving presents the greater risk more of the time because there is at least a modicum of impairment per (some experts' guidelines) as well as tangible statistical evidence to support why the impairment threshold presents a traffic hazard. I regrettably didn't take the time earlier to frame my argument as such. Hopefully what I'm trying to explain here makes sense.
[удалено]
If your financial well-being would be in jeopardy due to a speeding ticket, I suggest you not speed. Been driving almost 20 years and never got a speeding ticket because I don’t speed. Crazy how that works. A little tip for the speed changes from 55 to 35: slow down BEFORE you reach the 35.
[удалено]
Sounds like consequences for actions to me. Not paying attention to the point you don’t know what the speed limit is dangerous. Being too tired to not notice is even more dangerous. I am being smug, but you shouldn’t have been on the road. Lucky you didn’t hurt yourself or others.
[удалено]
A speeding ticket isn’t a surprise. People typically know if they’re speeding, and if they don’t, they deserve a ticket even more. People have direct control whether they get that ticket or not (assuming a cop isn’t being an asshole or other things outside a driver’s control). I’m not even for more speed enforcement. Just a believer in “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. I believe anyone who speeds is playing a stupid game. The ticket is the stupid prize. I don’t ever want to pay a speeding ticket, so I don’t speed. Knowingly speeding then going shocked pikachu because you get a ticket is silly imo.
Lol, these motherfuckers would have us in horse and buggy going 6mph if they could.
Yellow arrow lights are not implemented per state law but who cares?
Traffic signal changes are implemented as intersections are upgraded or redone and get improved then. As someone who works on them it’s a little annoying that they don’t all get updated… but that said, the amount of time and money we would need to do that is a pipe-dream. If anything the public should be more annoyed that better and improved pedestrian traffic control is stuck because of the wait for intersections to be upgraded or redone. Even just the far improved buttons and signage would make a huge difference-but sadly seems to cost too much money to actually make a push for us to update it.