OT: Speed Cams

[Eric Cope]

quoting, *There is no dollar amount that can be set for the value of a life.
*

That's an interesting topic. To save some one's life from, let say, traffic
collisions, costs $1,000,000, but we can save 10 burn victim's lives for
$100,000, then, not only can we put a price on human life, we can put a cost
on saving human lives in perspective. Obviously, these particular numbers
are fake, however there are numbers associated with saving every single
life, and because we live in a place of finite resources, we must decide how
we use those resources to save some, if any, of those lives. It is nice to
dictate via the government that we save all lives, but its at least
impractical, and at most statist.

In reference to the rest of your post, you will never eliminate all risk
from your or your daughter's life. If driving on the freeway is too risky
for your life (or your daughter's), then choose to drive on surface streets,
or walk, or bicycle, or stay home and pay for others to bring their goods
and services to you. I have a son and I mitigate the risks associated with
begin alive every single day, and its our role as parents to not only
mitigate life's risks, but teach this risk mitigation to our kids as well.

Eric

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Dorian A. Monroe, II <dorian.monroe at cox.net
> wrote:

> Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I don't believe that they were put in
> place only for the money.  The company that built the cameras is not
> getting a cut of the profits.  They are getting paid according to a
> contract that they've signed with the government.  If no revenue was
> generated from tickets as a result of the cameras, they would still get
> their money according to the contract.
>
> There is no dollar amount that can be set for the value of a life.
> Accidents and injuries on the highways are now lower than they were
> before the cameras were put in place.  The most likely variable that
> influenced the reduction in injuries is the presence of the cameras.
> It's my opinion that the people that are against cameras have a
> disregard for the lives of others.
>
> In the past, I thought that it may even be a good idea to create an
> additional class of driver's license for people that could prove that
> they are capable of driving safer at higher speeds.  Having more
> extensive driving exams and frequent and strict car inspections for
> these people would allow them to drive maybe an extra 10mph over the
> posted limit with designated plates or something.  My views on this
> changed after I had my daughter.  :)
>
> The problem is that no matter how well you can drive, you still have to
> be concerned about everyone else on the road.  There have been times
> when I'm driving down the road at the speed limit and paying attention
> to the road (in front of me, primarily) to have someone pass in the
> adjacent lane some 20+mph faster than me.  They came up so quickly that
> perhaps in the timing of my rearward glances I missed them and then all
> of a sudden they're beside me and gone.  Maybe they're a really "good"
> driver, but it shocks the beejeezus out of me.  Now what if I had
> decided to change lanes, or if anything unexpected were to happen?
> Debris on the road?  What if I were someone that didn't have good
> reflexes?  I would be really mad if that person caused me to have an
> accident.  I would be heartbroken and destroyed if anything were to
> happen to my daughter as a result of someone else's disregard for
> safety.
>
> There are many arguments for and against the speed cameras, like the
> right to face your accuser in court.  If you've had your picture taken
> by one of these cameras, you were breaking a law.  If you were to get
> pulled over by an officer, you would most likely get a fine and points
> on your license.  Your insurance may go up.  If you've had a couple
> accidents in the past and already have enough points you may lose your
> license.  If you get your picture taken, you only have a fine.  It's a
> trade-off that I think is acceptable.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM , Charles Jones wrote:
>
> > Personally to me the fact whether or not speed cameras save lives is
> > irrelevant.  The  #1 reason the speed cameras were installed was due
> > to the money they would bring in, not for our safety.  Yet when people
> > complain about them, they try to play the safety card instead of just
> > admitting they are loving their new cash cow (and so is the company
> > that installed the cameras that is getting a cut of the profits).
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20090402/6330b88d/attachment.htm