Hitler in the 21st century

I've been reading this thread with interest and while I do not agree with your likening of traffic laws (whatever the reasoning behind) with Hitler, I can see your overall point regarding liberties vs. safety (more along the lines of habeas corpus tho).That said, I had a few responses to this latest post. Road safety measures in residential areas are usually for the benefit of pedestrians and your link states that 2005 marked the lowest pedestrian fatality rate in 40 years.The report also goes on to state that the casualty rate, taking into account the amount of cars on the road, has markedly declined, meaning that even as the amount of cars increased, fatalities as a percentage have gone down. The numbers, as you say, have plateaued, but the rate has gone down. I agree with your statements on cameras. I don't think they do much to prevent crime, They do help solve crimes after the fact, which IMHO is somewhat beneficial, but doesn't really help the crime problem. Actual police presence does more to deter crime (including speeding) than cameras and this study definitely shows that.I do have to say though, that the problem is not people keeping one eye on the speedometer (no matter what that guy in the second article says), but actually speeding more because the cameras are not as prominent as a police vehicle parked on the side of the road. Like someone else said, you should be watching your speedometer no matter if the speed limit is 20, 40 or 70mph. By watching the speedometer I mean occasionally glancing down at it like you should do every minute or so and controlling your acceleration pressure. If you have a problem maintaining a relatively constant speed then that is your problem and you probably shouldn't be driving a car.I do find it interesting, tho, that the Register article was about the UK gov't suspending new camera installation. I thought your whole premise rested on the gov't having a secret agenda to take away your freedoms through surveillance. I doubt they would do something like this if they were really trying to accomplish what you say they are trying to. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea that constant surveillance is bad. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in this particular thought. Actually, it doesn't. Velocity, distance, road conditions, brake conditions, tire conditions and expectedness (meaning we are often more aware of the cars around us and will react quicker to a change in them than a kid or an object suddenly coming out of nowhere) all play a role in reaction time.And if the road is empty and clear, why not use cruise control? Or just simply slow down and enjoy the scenery or the music or the conversation (assuming there is someone in the car w/you)? Why are you in such a hurry? I don't think it's your right to speed just because you didn't give yourself sufficient time to get to work (which would normally mean that the road is not free and clear because everyone else is going to work as well) and if you're not going to work and it isn't an emergency, then why the hurry? Do you have evidence for that? While I agree that having police is better than having cameras, I don't see how watching your speed in the presence of a police car is any different than having cameras in the matter of watching speedometers. Unless you are implying that it is OK to speed just a little bit without cameras because the police rarely stop someone going 5 miles over the limit. The speed limit is the LIMIT. Not a suggestion, but a maximum. Your speed should ideally be a little bit below that in order to compensate for minor fluctuations in accelerator pressure. But you are a safe driver and you know that already. I'm not familiar with this particular town, but I agree that is sounds a little excessive, meaning the part about couriers and residents not being allowed in/out either. Then again, I don't know enough about the courier system (time schedules, methods of delivery and how much businesses are affected) to comment on that. Which leaves the residents. I would be kinda peeved if I had an emergency or any other necessary excursion (the article wasn't too clear on exceptions...do you know more?), but I would appreciate the more relaxed and quieter atmosphere. I know that experiments with car-free blocks have gone over very well here in NYC, but we also have a population that is used to walking and a pretty good public transportation system.Important questions would be: How large is the area affected? How do the benefits weigh against the negatives? Are there good alternatives to driving during the 6 hours when the ban is in effect? Just curious.

quote:

---

make all cars have speed regulators to the max speed limit ,

​

again, that's already been considered by government-sponsored commitees.

---

Why not? That wouldn't affect the areas with 30mph limits because the max speed would be determined by highway limits, no?I bet you can't wait for the day when cars are all automated and operating on a grid. /sarcasmI don't really see the problem with speed regulation. Cameras, yes. Regulation, no. Even if it is hyped up for some "appeal to sympathy" reason, I would do the responsible thing and give myself enough time to get where I need to go (barring a real emergency) and just enjoy the ride.I've learned to be a little more patient over my short life so far. Even waiting in line is fine with me because I have learned that I am pretty good company. I can occupy myself with my own thoughts or with music or with writing or reading a bit while I am waiting (and yes, I realize that the last two are not possible in cars) and I can even *gasp!* interact with people in line with me. Unless I have an actual crisis on my hands, it's not worth getting worked up about and if I didn't manage my time well, then I have no one to blame but myself. Yes, but the one driving a car has a 2 ton weapon in their control. And they usually are if they acted recklessly. Not necessarily true. If it was really an accident (i.e . you weren't speeding, weren't drunk, weren't talking on the phone, weren't fishing out that CD that dropped between the seats, weren't eating, weren't applying mascara or reading while driving, etc) then it may go in your favor. If you were doing any of those things you should own up to it (most people do not, though).I was hit by a car while crossing a 4 lane road (I was actually just trying to cross the eastbound 2 lanes after crossing the westbound lanes) when I was 11. I looked down the street before I ran across, but a couple on their way to a dinner event had taken a right turn and I was crossing pretty near to the turn. They were going at a normal speed for turning and tried to brake, but clipped my foot and I went flying and I broke my left foot and sprained both of my wrists (landing). It was a complete accident. I didn't see them approaching the turn and they didn't see me as it was just after dark. They didn't get punished just because they were driving the car because both of our testimonies and the testimony of my friend was taken into account (of course, I was still grounded for about 2 months because I was supposed to be at a community center dance, but I skipped out and went across the street to the arcade with a friend instead). The person driving the car does have more responsibility because they are the ones driving what amounts to a weapon.Driving is not a fundamental right and it comes with many responsibilities. Absolutely agreed. Except that they can document erratic driving or a hit-and-run for an investigation. Other than that I think they are pretty useless. Right, except for that car that comes out of nowhere or that stray person that misjudges the distance and tries to dart across the road or that big ass deer that runs into the road or that stranded driver that opens the car door at just the wrong time or any one of several unanticipated accidents waiting to happen all.Why the need to go 7-9mph over the limit? Is that extra 5-10 minutes worth it? I'm not saying that there are things that are not out of your control, but what's the hurry? I agree that rational and/or sympathetic police officers are better at assesing the particulars of the situation than a camera, but I ask again - barring an emergency, why the need to go just a few mph over the limit? It only buys you a couple of minutes in the long run.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

Well, I wasn't comparing 2005 to 1965. Where in "lowest in 40 years" do you get that I was directly comparing just two years? That phrase also suggests that it was lower than last year and the year before that and so on.I would attribute the plateau effect to a variety of safety measures (including those installed in cars which you elaborated on) which helped the steady decline over the last 40 years. I don't have any correlating data for each year, but I would hazard a guess that everytime a major innovation in car or traffic safety came out that the rates declined. These would include: school crossing signs, more traffic lights, guardrails/hazard strips, speed bumps/strips, lower speed limits on highways, in residential areas and in school zones, crosswalks and crossing lights, more public transport, drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws etc.Many of these ideas probably appeared in groups along with car safety features around the same time and had a more dramatic effect than the smaller step by step changes you seem to be describing. We've hit a plateau in technology and new laws over the last ten years, mostly tinkering with already existing technology and tightening/adjusting laws and we see that effect on the numbers. How effective do they say they are? Your initial example showed the townspeople only talking about saving a couple of lives. See above. A plateau. Do you expect every single safety measure to save thousands of lives. Or else they're worthless? Correct. But you cannot attribute the numbers solely to airbags and brakes. And why are you not complaining about the gov't forcing these safety standards in new cars? I mean, it costs you a lot of money as the consumer. Or how about requiring car seats? Those can get pretty expensive, too. Right, and the UK government is looking into the effectiveness of cameras because it has been shown that they don't seem to be doing the job they're supposed to. But what about the lower speed limits? {I have to admit that I am not an advocate of artficially low speed limits on highways, but I am an advocate of low speed limits in heavily residential areas and school zones and those thoroughfares that have alot of traffic lights and/or incoming traffic from side roads so when I say "lower speed limits" I mean non-highway limits} Maybe the effect of the other safety measures was offset by the increase in accidents caused by cameras?By the way, I meant to ask you where you were being forced to drive 20mph? Is it a highway? A rural road? A residential area? I don't think it's likely that you are being forced to drive at 20mph on a deserted stretch of arrow-straight road out in cow country, am I wrong? Huh? Any stats to back that up? Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but when I know I am entering a slow speed zone I slow down (or speed up depending on my starting speed) to a bit below the limit to allow for minor fluctuations in speed. The problem is that most people try to hover at the max speed and then they end up going over due to the fluctuations. That is their problem. The limit is the maximum, not a suggestion, and you should learn to compensate for your driving.Oh, and you do have many ways to gauge your speed and one of them is occasionally glancing down at your speedometer. The only reason people would have to have their eyes glued to the speedometer is if they think the limit is the starting point. No, your reaction time is not the same at a higher speed at the same distance. That is not to say you can avoid every accident, but very low speed limits are usually only imposed in residential areas. You know areas with alot of people walking and biking and with lots of connecting side roads. Rural roads and highways usually have much higher limits, but I have a feeling you are not talking about those.On top of reaction times not being the same, the chance of injury and/or fatality goes up as the speed goes up. The article I linked to above mentioned that the chance of a pedestrian being seriously injured or killed at 30mph is 45%, but the chance goes down to 5% at 20mph. Higher speeds mean more damage. Again, the speed limit should not be the base you work from. It is the limit. Try keeping your speed at 17-18 in a 20 so that you don't have to worry so much about going over. It's really not that hard and it'll only cost you a minute or two.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

Legend -I haven't answered your last post to me mostly because of constraints on my time lately, but partly because I don't see how I can begin to reply to you. I concede the point that some of the traffic measures you say are being imposed in the UK may very well be unfair or not very well thought out and may not even work (hopefully the ones which don't work are weeded out in the future), but I don't think it is a systematic, planned, nefarious campaign to take away the rights of drivers or a significant part of the larger pattern of stripping away our rights (driving is not a right).That said, I do see your overall point. I have been doing a lot of research this past year into various forms of authoritarianism and the current events which suggest a movement in that direction and I am writing a dystopian style novel depicting an authoritarian theocratic regime in the US. So, I have connected a lot of dots, but I have also learned to distinguish between the real dots and the imaginary, hyped up or at the very least not very pressing or relevant ones. Ringo is right, IMO, to say that you are "crying wolf." Raving like a lunatic about perceived slights on your liberty to drive the way you (and apparently many others) feel is safe and responsible and comparing safe driving propaganda to anti-Jewish, Nazi propaganda distracts people from the larger issues we are facing in our respective countries.It is OK to feel bitter about having to drive slower and to speak out against lazy thinking on the part of the voters and their elected officials (who are probably influenced by a citizens group in turn), but to draw such extreme parallels usually just makes people roll their eyes and ignore your larger point. I remember you having a larger point, but just look where comparing traffic laws to Nazism got you. Nowhere.I, sadly, fell for it, too and when I have more time maybe you and I can discuss the more important issues at hand, which I believe do stink of fascism.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London