Sure. But speeding doesn’t cause collisons nearly to the level of any of the other things.
Going slow is a great way to reduce damage once a collision has occurred. Artificially slowing down roads (by throwing up a camera and a sign and nothing more) doesn’t do shit to prevent collisions in the first place. It might slow down the road. It might make someone panic and jump on their brakes to avoid a ticket. It might get people paying closer attention to their speedometer than to the crosswalk up ahead.
Put another way, you’re referencing the second law. Second law doesn’t matter until the first law is broke. Don’t act upon an object, won’t be no actions upon another object.
They tried that for a few years. People went to court to challenge them, overwhelmed the court system, and made it not cost effective to pursue people.
Where they winning cases on merit or just so many cases filled that the court could not process the number of cases? I would be interested to read up on that if you had something on that.
I know of a situation where a municipality had not done the required traffic survey to justify the speed limit. In that case, if challenged in court, tickets get dismissed. One individual knew the law, was constantly cited, kept going to court to get the tickets dismissed. Eventually the individual filed a RICO suit against the government that forced them to do the traffic study, which resulted in the speed limit being raised.
I think most people who challenged lost, but it didn’t stop them from trying… Regardless, the courts weren’t getting the money from the fines, at least not enough to compensate for the amount of time people took up.
This reads as a classic project management failure. Lack of stakeholder engagement impacting the forecasting of requirements, leading to insufficient resources allocated, human and material. Lack of training prior to rollout. Inadequate quality control mechanisms relating to vendor performance. Poor monitoring post implementation leading to slow corrective actions. All of the above led to inefficiencies causing costs to exceed revenues.
Self sustaining budget was a secondary goal. The paper does not delve into the stated primary goal, increased safety. Were speeds and or accidents reduced. If accidents were reduced, were costs related to emergency services and infrastructure repair also reduced. What was the total impact to municipalities budget, not just the judicial system.
Sure. But speeding doesn’t cause collisons nearly to the level of any of the other things.
Going slow is a great way to reduce damage once a collision has occurred. Artificially slowing down roads (by throwing up a camera and a sign and nothing more) doesn’t do shit to prevent collisions in the first place. It might slow down the road. It might make someone panic and jump on their brakes to avoid a ticket. It might get people paying closer attention to their speedometer than to the crosswalk up ahead.
Put another way, you’re referencing the second law. Second law doesn’t matter until the first law is broke. Don’t act upon an object, won’t be no actions upon another object.
Going the posted speed limit is not going slow.
Speed is a leading factor in collisions resulting in serious injuries and death.
Where I live, going the speed limit gets you run off the road. I’m not even exaggerating.
If only there was a way to remotely monitor and cite speeders
They tried that for a few years. People went to court to challenge them, overwhelmed the court system, and made it not cost effective to pursue people.
Where they winning cases on merit or just so many cases filled that the court could not process the number of cases? I would be interested to read up on that if you had something on that.
I know of a situation where a municipality had not done the required traffic survey to justify the speed limit. In that case, if challenged in court, tickets get dismissed. One individual knew the law, was constantly cited, kept going to court to get the tickets dismissed. Eventually the individual filed a RICO suit against the government that forced them to do the traffic study, which resulted in the speed limit being raised.
I think most people who challenged lost, but it didn’t stop them from trying… Regardless, the courts weren’t getting the money from the fines, at least not enough to compensate for the amount of time people took up.
https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/16769/sosa_photospeedenforceaz.pdf
Thanks.
This reads as a classic project management failure. Lack of stakeholder engagement impacting the forecasting of requirements, leading to insufficient resources allocated, human and material. Lack of training prior to rollout. Inadequate quality control mechanisms relating to vendor performance. Poor monitoring post implementation leading to slow corrective actions. All of the above led to inefficiencies causing costs to exceed revenues.
Self sustaining budget was a secondary goal. The paper does not delve into the stated primary goal, increased safety. Were speeds and or accidents reduced. If accidents were reduced, were costs related to emergency services and infrastructure repair also reduced. What was the total impact to municipalities budget, not just the judicial system.
Are you sure about that?
Is there a word for a goal that’s stated for the sake of appearance, but not actually valued? It’s “lie” isn’t it?