Thursday May 5, 2016
Jump to content
M3.8 Earthquake rattles northwestern Arizona May 5, 2016
Actually, Robert, that is an oft-cited meme by those who are impatient with drivers who are somewhat less qualified and therefore more cautious. As a professional driving instructor (retired), I have to say the statistics do not bear out that meme. When slow, hesitant, unsure-of-themselves drivers "cause accidents" it is almost invariably because the other driver was impatient with the less-qualified driver and didn't give THEMSELVES the time and clearance and caution necessary to avoid the collision. The reason DPS tends to concentrate on speeding (it doesn't really, but it often works out that way due to the number of speeders) is because speed kills. It sounds like a trite little sound bite but it is true: It not only kills because higher speed causes greater impact, but more importantly it gives the driver less time to react at all, less time to react with a measured response, and less time to react in the safest manner. The only thing that causes more accidents than speed is tailgating. If you are one car length behind the vehicle ahead for every ten miles an hour of speed (the absolute minimum safe distance) you'd better be paying very sharp attention because if he slams on his brakes and you aren't on your brakes within a half second, you are going to hit him. You are slightly better off if you are sharp enough to know what is right beside you every instant, and have exactly the right tire pressure, because you can make an evasive lane change in less time -- provided he doesn't do the same. (Low tire pressure will cause you to lose control.) There is a lot more to safe driving that herding a chunk of steel down the road, and most drivers haven't had a lick of safety training, like stopping where you can see the rear tires on the ground ahead of you, so a rear-ender doesn't shove you into him. Lots more available in professional driving training; I recommend it.
Leave it to liberal Ted to advocate destruction of our right to travel on public thoroughfares and that drivers should not be required to pay for the carnage caused by their irresponsibility. That is the liberal meme throughout his paragraph above; no one should be required to be responsible for themselves; no one should suffer the consequences of their lifestyle decisions, everyone should be taxed to death to support universal health care that drives the cost of healthcare up until 45% cannot afford it, roadway carnage should be embraced if it prevents law enforcement from interfering with the private right to drive at whatever speed you choose regardless of safety, and collective responsibility is an absolute requirement as long as he is not personally responsible for anything. What a self-destructive collection of conflicting values!
And that, Mr. Aal, is an easy but sophomoric and false meme: When the violators of the principles of safe driving are compelled to pay the costs of enforcement it relieves the safe drivers from having to pay for that for which they are not at fault. Revenue collection by police to pay for enforcement of laws is a lot fairer than requiring the community at large to pay for the carnage caused by doofuses with no respect for the safety or rights of others. My own small town is illustrative: We have a main highway through the middle of our town, four lanes wide with a suicide lane in the middle but no parking lane, one mile almost perfectly straight. No room for an officer to pull anyone over, many businesses and driveways on one side of the street, many fatal accidents until we installed four radar cameras. We've had I think one fatal accident since. And the revenue generated by the speed cameras pays for our patrol contract with the county Sheriff. We are one of two towns in the whole State with a positive cash flow and no need for local taxes. Now, thanks to the AZ-AG ruling, we are going to see a tremendous increase in fatal accidents, and in our taxes to pay for public works and law enforcement, and our cash flow will go negative. I see no increase in our "liberty," which I hold in high esteem, as a result of this ruling.
Huh? That's your point? Sounds to me like the CPS presence between MP235 and 240 is accomplishing its objective. OTOH, "as a former (P)olice (O)fficer," did your training ever let it sink in that traffic law enforcement in some areas -- curvy and steep mountain roads, for example -- contributes to distracted driving and thereby increases the number and severity of accidents?
One quibble, Mr. Jones: The revenue generated by the tickets and all the surcharges and all the rest of it just barely approaches but does not exceed the break even point. This is why (for example) the Beeline is not patrolled on a daily basis. They are too short-handed due to budget constraints to patrol every road every day. They swap around regularly, paying more attention to areas of high risk of dangerous driving.
Can you think of any reason why the law-abiding folks who drive the Beeline should be forced to pay for the damages caused by dangerous drivers who think the law has no purpose beyond profit, when the dangerous drivers can be made to pay for the law enforcement that reduces dangerous driving?
Can you describe a location approaching Corvair Curve where an officer can set up to catch speeders that would not require chasing them into the curve? Do you have sense enough to understand the distraction imposed by the presence of an officer at the side of the road, when drivers need to concentrate on the road ahead and not their rear view to see whether they are being followed by that officer?
In short, Ted, do you have the brains God gave a goose?
Under your thesis the security cameras at convenience stores should never be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution because a cop didn't witness the criminal act. And it appears to me your thesis would require hiring several thousand more officers and would turn us into a police state instead of a surveillance state.
Oh. You've never gotten a ticket there, but it is not because you obey the traffic laws designed to protect you and everyone else from dangerous driving; rather, it is because you think you are smarter than the cops.
Can you explain to me the difference between your attitude and the criminal predator who thinks he is smarter than the cops?
Does it have anything to do with the liberal attitude that no one should suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions versus the conservative attitude that no one ELSE should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions?
“This straight stretch begs the drivers who have been driving the curvy mountain roads to finally put their foot down on this; probably the safest five miles of road in Arizona.”
It’s all the road’s fault, for being safe. Right, Ted. The road made ya do it, and those mean ol’ DPS officers picked yer pocket.
So the guy who think government should force us all to be responsible for those who can't or won't be responsible for themselves believes government should butt out when it makes HIM responsible for putting others at risk by his irresponsible driving.
Typical liberal. Totally incapable of accepting personal responsibility.
But you do it all the time, Ted. Okay, here: Source: Wall Street Journal: "17.4%: Including state and local taxes, this was the average effective tax rate for profitable companies with at least $10 million in revenues in 2010. If unprofitable companies are included the average worldwide effective tax rate can rise as high as 22.7%.
$242 billion: This is the amount of corporate income taxes the GAO says was paid in 2012, citing Office of Management and Budget estimates. That figure compares to $845 billion collected in social insurance taxes and $1.1 trillion collected in individual income taxes. Since the early 1980s, corporate income tax has accounted for about 6% to 15% of federal revenue." And it is those corporations, Ted, that accounted for 95% of the jobs in the economy (excluding government wonks who produce nothing).
Last login: Tuesday, April 19, 2016