----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hord" > Russell- > > Thanks for posting this. I was beginning to think that I was the only one > who had considered these points and things along these lines. > > I personally feel that there should be 100% passive speeding detection > checkpoints every few hundred feet, everywhere. A mailbox with 200 > tickets after a trip to visit the family would certainly apply the brakes to > those who feel no obligation to obey posted speed limits, and at much > less cost than the corpse of a child. > Look, the long and the short of it is this: kinetic energy increases > as the square of velocity. IF you wreck, or hit someone, or > whatever, the difference between 25 whatevers/h and 26 > whatevers/h is the difference in scaling KE by 625 or 676. > Mike H. I don't see your point of the scaling, Mike. Are you saying that scaling the energy by a lesser coeff would somehow make hitting something less deadly? The energy in even a slowly moving car is more than enough to kill someone. Even though it *does* scale exponentially, such scaling becomes a moot point at speeds over above 35mph or so, since any collision with person or property would be catastrophic. The only grounds for that argument I see is one based on stopping distance or reaction times, both of which are compensated for on roads designed for high-speed traffic. IMO the auto safety regulations should concentrate more upon keeping the energy inherent to a moving car from being released in a harmful way instead of trying to limit the total amount of energy in a moving vehicle. Elevated crosswalks near highways, protected sidewalks and/or enclosures around busy streets, and liberal use of human traffic safety enforcers all seem like much better ways to ensure pedestrian safety than the zero-tolerance use of passive devices. Of course these things do not generate revenue for anybody and thus are rarely seen. Mike - if you're going to complain about the H2's, then perhaps you should consider the amount of energy contained in a semi-truck at highway speeds. Next time I'm sitting at a red light, at an intersection so straight and clear that I can see the empty roads bending over the horizon, I'm sure I'll think about this thread as I let my foot off the brake and drive on through. Who needs a light to think for them, anyway. :-D > >I often hear people waxing lyrical over the inequity of speed cameras, red > >light cameras, traffic radar and traffic police in general. I do wonder > >what > >such people (and there is of course a range of opinions) would feel > >genuinely comfortable and happy with? No traffic rules? No speed limits*? - > >or perhaps limits but no enforcement. Maybe limits with very wide > >enforcement margins. (50 mph with 30 mph margin = typically 90 mph in > >town). > >I also wonder what they would do that they don't do now to protect their > >children under such utopian arrangements. Russel - since you asked I'll tell ya. I'd be very comfortable with reasonable speed limits (as are mostly already in place) enforced on a gray-scale basis. Zero-tolerance is great for some things (rape, homicide, kidnapping) but not so much for traffic violations. I object to passive devices not because they enforce the laws, but because they do so in an indescriminate fashion. There are (and will always be) good reasons for speeding and running red lights, if the conditions permit and do not endanger others. If there is a passive system which can differentiate between an acceptable such case and an unacceptable case, then I'd probably be a lot more receptive to it. A quick example. Imagine sitting at a red-light waiting for a green, the intersecting road is clearly visible and clearly empty, and a fast-approaching semi is coming from behind at a velocity such that a collision is inevitable. By simply running the redlight, a wreck and potential personal injury could be avoided. Under the stoplight camera system a ticket would almost certainly be issued, but certainly no traffic cop would issue one in this situation. IMO this situation demonstrates the importance of subjective human thought regarding matters of personal safety. I agree with Mike that safety is very important, but also propose that the method used to achieve such safety should be as non-invasive as possible, and should not sacrifice the subjective assessment which can (thus far) only be achieved through a human. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads