|
|
Quote:
"---mu·ta·tion (my-tshn) Pronunciation Key n. The act or process of being altered or changed. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality. Genetics. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome. ----" As you are a combination of 3 halves you must have mutated . Maybe Denis has the other half , in that case 4 halves would make 2 organisms ,which would be about right .Now just how the two of you fit into one cranium is beyond my understanding and just why you keep up your antics on this message board is also beyond my understanding . Now how about a photo of your bike with you on it . http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/6178/caqz6fo3cw5.jpg |
|
Speed Cameras
A little known traffic safety principle is that you can judge the effectiveness of a supposed 'safety measure' by the revenue it generates, and the relationship is inverse. In other words, if traffic cameras continue to generate substantial revenue it indicates that the measure is acting more as a randomly applied tax than as a safety (i.e. behavior altering) measure.
A good example of ineffective use of these cameras was in Vancouver BC Canada (my home) where they used to be employed along a corridor road that had an unrealistically low speed limit (50 kph) with habitual heavy traffic at 70 kph. Nobody adjusted to 50 kph. Rather, road users travelling with the flow of traffic were ticketed, paid the tickets, continued to "speed" and were frustrated with the system. These cameras could work well in my view to ticket excessive speed violators. An extremely high fine (confiscated bike?) for excessive speed would probably result in few, if any, confiscations: no revenue suggests an effective measure, remember? Don PS I tried to post this under the speed cameras discussion but don't think it made it there, so sorry if this is in the wrong spot! |
Speed cameras do not, as a general rule, reduce the occurence of accidents. They do, however, reduce the government's overdraft.
Cameras do not recognise or stop dangerous driving, aside from speeds over a certain figure that may or may not be dangerous given the road conditions. They do not recognise or stop drunk drivers. They do not recognise or stop aggressive drivers or road rage, or cars belching out black smoke or cars with no tax or insurance or a stolen vehicle. In a nutshell, I'd rather they spent the money for cameras on getting qualified, trained traffic coppers on the road. I'd feel safer, even if I do get nicked for speeding... |
Moggy's observation that speed cameras lull people into the thinking that it is okay to speed when there is no camera is dead on. It is dangerously apparent on Korean expressways. With the winter beginning and the morning roads threatening ice, I have gone back to driving my cracker box. (a Tico that gets 60mpg and will hold 4 small adults in total discomfort)
Pushed hard and with a downhill run, it will do 70MPH or about 115kph. The speed limit is 100. Probably 99% of the cars race by me doing 150-even 200, then the sign says "Caution, Police enforcement ahead 500 meters" and shows the camera icon. You can watch the brake lights come on and everyone slows down to 100, past the camera rail and it is back up to maniical speeds. 34 killed in traffic everyday, 43, 262 accidents everyday. 60% speeding, most of the rest from running red lights. Cameras generate an income, but they only slow the traffic down for about 200 meters. |
If you don't like speed cameras because they're ineffective and expensive, then you have a point. But if you one of those people who hates them because they catch (and fine) you for speeding then who's fault is that? If you know the limit is 50kph, regardless of whether you think it's appropriate or not, and you exceed that limit then it serves you right if you're caught. It's like knowing a dog is aggressive and vicious but you go to stroke it anyway, then bitch when you get bitten.
|
I don't hate the cameras at all. I obey the speed limits. Overall, I have learned that I will get to wherever I am going not far behind those who speed and I will be a little more relaxed when I get there. My complaint about the cameras is that they do little good. If the same amount were put into hiring traffic cops who could catch the speeders and fine them big time, it would do more good. Most of the laws are on the books for good reason. Even if I don't think they are, unless I go political to change the laws, I can't complain if I did speed and got caught. The law is there, obey it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm dead against so-called "safety cameras" but in the UK, all fixed speed cameras are painted in bright colours and must not be hidden, so if you get caught, you're obviously not watching the road or have ineffective observation skills and who's fault is that? BTW, I have a clean licence, never been caught speeding (touch wood) and only ever obey speed limits as and when I see fit to do so. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11. |