I agree with the first point, but why not just eliminate passenger screening entirely? We don't have routine screening for other types of mass transit like buses, taxis/ride shares. Even going to places like the movies or local shopping mall don't require screening (at least in my experience).
We have had incidents in pretty much all the examples I mentioned above, but we didn't have to deal with the subsequent nationwide/worldwide security theater that comes with traveling by air.
Why would that have to even be a requirement? People can buy other types of computing devices online and start using them. An unlocked GSM phone could work the same way. Order online, install the SIM, and start using it.
The fact that people want to get phones through their carriers is the major reason why the cell phone market in the US was so far behind the rest of the world in terms of device features and capabilities until the iphone came along.
The only time this isn't true is if idiots break the law by driving faster than the imposed limit
The imposed limit has nothing to do with safety and there isn't a higher rate of crashes that result from people who exceed it. Again, what good does it do to post a limit below the actual speed of traffic?
The speed limit is supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed of traffic rounded to the nearest 5 mph. In that case, you have less than 2 percent of traffic exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph instead of practically all of it going at least 10 mph over.
Drivers aren't going to slow down no matter how much you wish and no matter how many names you call them. Just raise speed limits to actual traffic speeds and the speeding problem will go away over night.
Road rules are supposed to be based on safety. Posting a speed limit well below actual traffic speeds does not accomplish that. All it does is increase traffic speed variance (which in turn leads to less safe conditions). The same thing applies to posting unnecessary stop signs for the express purpose of slowing traffic down instead of legitimate safety concerns at intersections with low visibility of conflicting traffic. All that leads to is a disrespect of traffic control devices because a lot of drivers will essentially think that the government is "crying wolf".
I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the NMSL had nothing to do with safety when it was first implemented. Traffic deaths have been going down even though speed limits have been going up.
But you continue believing that it's perfectly okay to post speed limits that are essentially irrelevant when driving in traffic (unless you want to become the victim of a rear end collision).
So what you're saying is that a lot of people aren't following the rules and breaking the law, but the one vehicle actually being operated under the conditions of the permit is the hazard?
And what good does it do to post speed limits well below actual traffic speeds? Studies have shown and the safest speed to drive is the speed of traffic, not signficantly below it or above it (search for the Solomon Curve). If traffic is already going between 65 to 75 mph and the posted speed limit is 55 mph, it's far more realistic to expect the one vehicle driving 55 mph to speed up to a speed within the 10 mph pace as opposed to expecting that the rest of traffic will slow down to the speed limit.
On a related note, have you ever seen the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It pretty much shows that slowing down traffic to a speed that it normally doesn't flow at just leads to a tailgating platoon of vehicles that will have a much more difficult time avoiding any hazards on the roadway compared to when they're more spread out.
You can speed all day, all year, but eventually you may end up killing or paralyzing someone.
Not really. Most speed limits are underposted compared to actual traffic speeds. For instance, for decades, the maximum speed limit on US interstates was 55 mph, yet most people drove at least 10 mph above that speed. That's still the case in states that held on to that limit to this day (e.g., I-66 outside of Washington DC).
Since 1995, the vast majority of states have raised their limits beyond 55/65 mph, and yet, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles is quite a bit lower now than it ever was during the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) era.
If I had assaulted and injured four different people in the last 12 months, then I would be serving a prison sentence. Do you really think that someone whose license is suspended will simply stop driving? Perhaps they should be in jail. Then there's no way for them to drive regardless of the status of their license.
But as fuel economy goes up, the relative tax revenue for miles driven (which translates to wear and tear on the roads) goes down.
Passenger vehicles really don't contribute that much to roadway wear and tear. The vast majority of wear and tear is due to tractor-trailers and I don't think that the fuel economy of the average tractor-trailer is going to change anytime soon.
RADAR is pretty much accurate most of the time. The problem is that the officer cannot be certain which object is responsible for the speed reading. Also, the greater the distance, the more area the radar beam covers, so if you're 1000 feet away from the source of RADAR, the beam will cover all lanes of the highway you're on and possibly some of the opposing side (assuming no physical obstruction).
In your case, it sounds like the officer used the RADAR unit, got a speed, and identified you as the source even though you weren't. This is because police officers almost never follow established procedure in terms of speed enforcement. That is, they're required to visually estimate the speed of the vehicle, and then confirm the speed with RADAR. They'll testify that they did so in court, but in reality, that's almost never the case due to the way they try to conceal themselves when conducting speed enforcement. That is, they cannot see you until you're almost on top of them and they just use the RADAR unit without actually visually estimating your speed first.
The problem is that governments overuse the "terror" adjective. Many of the incidents in question are criminal in nature (e. g., kidnappings in Iraq). The correct term for the subject at hand is "cyber-criminal."
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the first point, but why not just eliminate passenger screening entirely? We don't have routine screening for other types of mass transit like buses, taxis/ride shares. Even going to places like the movies or local shopping mall don't require screening (at least in my experience).
We have had incidents in pretty much all the examples I mentioned above, but we didn't have to deal with the subsequent nationwide/worldwide security theater that comes with traveling by air.
1. Not solid through US carriers.
Why would that have to even be a requirement? People can buy other types of computing devices online and start using them. An unlocked GSM phone could work the same way. Order online, install the SIM, and start using it. The fact that people want to get phones through their carriers is the major reason why the cell phone market in the US was so far behind the rest of the world in terms of device features and capabilities until the iphone came along.
The only time this isn't true is if idiots break the law by driving faster than the imposed limit
The imposed limit has nothing to do with safety and there isn't a higher rate of crashes that result from people who exceed it. Again, what good does it do to post a limit below the actual speed of traffic? The speed limit is supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed of traffic rounded to the nearest 5 mph. In that case, you have less than 2 percent of traffic exceeding the speed limit by more than 5 mph instead of practically all of it going at least 10 mph over. Drivers aren't going to slow down no matter how much you wish and no matter how many names you call them. Just raise speed limits to actual traffic speeds and the speeding problem will go away over night.
Road rules are supposed to be based on safety. Posting a speed limit well below actual traffic speeds does not accomplish that. All it does is increase traffic speed variance (which in turn leads to less safe conditions). The same thing applies to posting unnecessary stop signs for the express purpose of slowing traffic down instead of legitimate safety concerns at intersections with low visibility of conflicting traffic. All that leads to is a disrespect of traffic control devices because a lot of drivers will essentially think that the government is "crying wolf". I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the NMSL had nothing to do with safety when it was first implemented. Traffic deaths have been going down even though speed limits have been going up. But you continue believing that it's perfectly okay to post speed limits that are essentially irrelevant when driving in traffic (unless you want to become the victim of a rear end collision).
So what you're saying is that a lot of people aren't following the rules and breaking the law, but the one vehicle actually being operated under the conditions of the permit is the hazard?
And what good does it do to post speed limits well below actual traffic speeds? Studies have shown and the safest speed to drive is the speed of traffic, not signficantly below it or above it (search for the Solomon Curve). If traffic is already going between 65 to 75 mph and the posted speed limit is 55 mph, it's far more realistic to expect the one vehicle driving 55 mph to speed up to a speed within the 10 mph pace as opposed to expecting that the rest of traffic will slow down to the speed limit. On a related note, have you ever seen the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It pretty much shows that slowing down traffic to a speed that it normally doesn't flow at just leads to a tailgating platoon of vehicles that will have a much more difficult time avoiding any hazards on the roadway compared to when they're more spread out.
I also like Usenet, but that's a usability nightmare for anyone used to common web comment tools.
Would that still be the case if one is using a desktop client application like Thunderbird or Windows Mail?
You can speed all day, all year, but eventually you may end up killing or paralyzing someone.
Not really. Most speed limits are underposted compared to actual traffic speeds. For instance, for decades, the maximum speed limit on US interstates was 55 mph, yet most people drove at least 10 mph above that speed. That's still the case in states that held on to that limit to this day (e.g., I-66 outside of Washington DC). Since 1995, the vast majority of states have raised their limits beyond 55/65 mph, and yet, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles is quite a bit lower now than it ever was during the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) era.
If I had assaulted and injured four different people in the last 12 months, then I would be serving a prison sentence. Do you really think that someone whose license is suspended will simply stop driving? Perhaps they should be in jail. Then there's no way for them to drive regardless of the status of their license.
But as fuel economy goes up, the relative tax revenue for miles driven (which translates to wear and tear on the roads) goes down.
Passenger vehicles really don't contribute that much to roadway wear and tear. The vast majority of wear and tear is due to tractor-trailers and I don't think that the fuel economy of the average tractor-trailer is going to change anytime soon.
RADAR is pretty much accurate most of the time. The problem is that the officer cannot be certain which object is responsible for the speed reading. Also, the greater the distance, the more area the radar beam covers, so if you're 1000 feet away from the source of RADAR, the beam will cover all lanes of the highway you're on and possibly some of the opposing side (assuming no physical obstruction).
In your case, it sounds like the officer used the RADAR unit, got a speed, and identified you as the source even though you weren't. This is because police officers almost never follow established procedure in terms of speed enforcement. That is, they're required to visually estimate the speed of the vehicle, and then confirm the speed with RADAR. They'll testify that they did so in court, but in reality, that's almost never the case due to the way they try to conceal themselves when conducting speed enforcement. That is, they cannot see you until you're almost on top of them and they just use the RADAR unit without actually visually estimating your speed first.
The problem is that governments overuse the "terror" adjective. Many of the incidents in question are criminal in nature (e. g., kidnappings in Iraq). The correct term for the subject at hand is "cyber-criminal."
It looks like you only read Code of Virginia statute 46.2.842. 46.2.842.1 does include a provision for a visual signal.