Total Motorcycle Community Forums

There's no speed cameras per se. There is this thing with EZ-PASS which is an electronic tag that you put in your car to pay tolls with. From that they can tell how long it took you to drive from one toll booth to another. Which can also determine your speed. Speed = Distance / Time
I haven't heard of anyone getting speeding tickets this way yet. But, a person I used to work with did get a warning letter about driving to fast.

That doesn't make any sense. What if you pulled over to get something to eat between toll booths, than it would seem like you took an eternity getting. Or what if you took a short cut, that saved you like 10 minutes on the highway, but you still re-entered the highway before the next toll booth, than it would seem like you sped there, because you took a shortcut.

camthepyro wrote:

There's no speed cameras per se. There is this thing with EZ-PASS which is an electronic tag that you put in your car to pay tolls with. From that they can tell how long it took you to drive from one toll booth to another. Which can also determine your speed. Speed = Distance / Time
I haven't heard of anyone getting speeding tickets this way yet. But, a person I used to work with did get a warning letter about driving to fast.

That doesn't make any sense. What if you pulled over to get something to eat between toll booths, than it would seem like you took an eternity getting. Or what if you took a short cut, that saved you like 10 minutes on the highway, but you still re-entered the highway before the next toll booth, than it would seem like you sped there, because you took a shortcut.

They don't care how long it takes you to go between toll booths UNLESS your speeding. You just pointed out how easy it is to fool the system. As far as getting off a toll highway only to get back on again later to save time that scenerio doesn't exist. It was designed that way on purpose. But, if you don't care about time and only care about saving money on toll booths it can be done. (just follow the truckers they know ways around the tolls)

Doesnt sound like a very reliable system.

CNF2002 wrote:You do not need to be travelling at 80+mph on a 60mph freeway. Sorry, but that kind of dangerous driving has nothing to do with your freedom and everything to do with endangering the safety of others.

Yeah that's true, but I like going fast for little blips. I also accept the fact that I could get a ticket. If I do, I won't complain that the law messed me up, or the cops are bad. They do their job. I don't weave around other cars, and I rarely will travel more than 5 over if the speed limit is under 55 MPH. I am extremly concerned with my and other's safety, so if I'm going 20 MPH over the speed limit, you can bet I've reviewed the situation carefully, and I'm willing to hand over my license and pay the fee. I can't change the law, but that doesn't mean I always agree, or comply. I just have to be aware if I'm willing to pay the price and be responsible for my actions. But like most things with a bike, it is a measured risk that I enjoy. I think if they started randomly photo shooting speeder and handing out tickets, I'd change my tune. That is why I don't care about red light cameras - I'll never have to face a fine, since I would never run a red light.

I agree with the above post. Virtually everyone speeds, it's just a matter of how much is too much. Where I live, everyone goes 20mph over the speed limit on the highway, so you have to go that fast just to keep up. But if you're going to speed, then you better be ready to pay the fine if you get pulled over. I hate when people are like "cops are jerks, I only going 50 in a 35, I don't deserve a ticket!" well, yes you do, you were speeding, the cop is just doing his job.

camthepyro wrote:Ok, first, basshole:

How are we anywhere close to being communist? Big businesses are exactly what seperates us from communism. Are you able to get any job you want? Are you able to buy a house anywhere you want? Are you able to choose to send your kids to a private school? Are you able to own your own business if you want to?

Yes, you are. But you would not in a communist society. And what makes you think we're closer to communism now then we were 200 years ago (at which point, I pretty sure communism didn't even exist).?

Erm, the Soviet communist party was the biggest business of them all, owning most of the country's capital and managing it (or mismanaging it) in the same way as other businesses. Capitalism, by definition, is a system that is based on the accumulation of capital. It doesn't matter how that capital is owned. In Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries capital was originally owned by individual entreprenurs, later it came to be owned by business partners or groups of people, later still it was owned by joint stock companies that had limited liability. Businesses continued to grow and became multinational shifting capital around the world. The system developed further, offering more ways for those with capital to become rich. Increasingly in the 19th and 20th centuries you could own capital in the form of stocks and bonds which had no relation to production. At the same time Governments started to own capital and run businesses that had strategic or commercial importance for others. It's all capitalism.

That makes what I have said sound like I think Soviet Russia was a capitalist country. Well, yes, I do. It actually behaved like a capitalist country (initiating wars, opressing its own citizens etc) because it was one.

If you think your country's history is one of freedom and liberty try reading Howard Zinns history of the US. You will soon find just how heavily working people have historically been oppressed in the U.S.(murdered, had their rights taken away from them, had their minds "messed" with etc etc) by governments and big business. There's nothing new in all this.

So you are able to get any job you want are you? or move into any house you want to? or choose a private school or start a business? C'mon. When did you last look at your CV or your bank balance etc etc.

Just one thought. If everyone in the country was able to start a business, there would be no one left to do the work. So that means only those who are ruthless enough and willing enough to exploit others will suceed. Wow! that sounds wonderful!

In any case, most businesses are owned and continue to be owned generation after generation by those with inherited capital, and if there are small businesses they don't own now, they soon will. The idea that anyone can get on the ladder is just one of those myths.

Sorry for the bad tempered tone, Cam. Nothing is personally directed at you in this. Just feeling generally pissed off at the moment.

So you are able to get any job you want are you? or move into any house you want to? or choose a private school or start a business? C'mon. When did you last look at your CV or your bank balance etc etc.

If I was willing to put the time and effort into it, and if I hadn't already screwed my life, then yes, I believe I could have eventually had any job I wanted.

Just one thought. If everyone in the country was able to start a business, there would be no one left to do the work. So that means only those who are ruthless enough and willing enough to exploit others will suceed. Wow! that sounds wonderful!

Every citizen IS able to start a business if they were willing to make the sacrifices neccesary, but most people aren't. The point is, nobody is going to tell you you can't start that business.

CNF2002 wrote:The 'cameras' are just an extension of law enforcement. If we had a cop on ever corner, you wouldn't mind. But if we have 1 cop watching 50 cameras on every corner, suddenly its a violation of your rights.

If a cop was on every corner I would mind very much. Not to mention the amount of money that would require.

CNF2002 wrote:I don't get it. If you're driving, and you violate the law, you should be punished. Heck, I wish I could drive around with a camera and send the tape in to the police so they can send a ticket to some of these idiots on the road.

Some people truly drive like a$$hats and deserve tickets. But, it needs to be observed by a true policeman not cameras or private citizens. I don't want people coming into my office trying to do my job for me either.

CNF2002 wrote:You do not need to be travelling at 80+mph on a 60mph freeway. Sorry, but that kind of dangerous driving has nothing to do with your freedom and everything to do with endangering the safety of others. So many people die from speeding and running red lights. We simply can't afford the manpower to police the situation effectively, and when they finally come up with a solution people freak out about it.

The idea about cameras has nothing to do with "safety," "saving the children," or catching "road ragers" It does however have EVERYTHING to do with generating revenue for the govt.

If the govt was truly concerned about road safety they would;
1. Design better roads
2. Post reasonable speed limits. (currently speed limits are underposted)
3. Make car manufactures install better safety equipment.
4. Raise the amount of training needed to get a drivers license. And possibly retest every so often especially seniors.
5. Design better public transportation especially in urban centers. (wouldn't make much sense in Montana)

CNF2002 wrote:People fully defend the right of the press to point a camera anywhere in public just to make a buck, but when the government does it its a violation.

I'm one of those people. I wouldn't say all journalist are looking to make a buck, but some certainly are. It's been said that the press is the fourth branch of govt. Without the press (good & bad) society would quickly crumble.

CNF2002 wrote:I'm not for black boxes in cars, although I think with the level of trust I have in the average person to be honest, it would help most victims in car accidents.

The problem is the infomation is there. Who says insurance companies won't try to access it too.

CNF2002 wrote:The cameras are not for the government to get jollys over watching you everyday. They are there on public roads, for the safety of the public.

They most certainly are there for the govt to get their jollies everyday. Whos to say the people watching this system are trustworthy ? Who watches the watchers ? Imagine this -- a policeman beats his wife. She leaves he doesn't where she went. Then he remembers theres cameras on the street. He taps into the system finds her car and tracks her down. Later killing her & himself. The cameras didn't help this woman at all.
But, hey those cameras did generate some sweet revenue.

Traffic enforcement in general has one fatal flaw. It is enforced SELECTIVELY. And the people who enforce it don't follow it.

Personaly, I would love to see traffic laws enforced to the max. Every single person in America would eventually break a traffic law. Even you CNF. The court system would be backed up until the year 2095. Only then would you see some true change in the traffic racket.

camthepyro wrote:

So you are able to get any job you want are you? or move into any house you want to? or choose a private school or start a business? C'mon. When did you last look at your CV or your bank balance etc etc.

If I was willing to put the time and effort into it, and if I hadn't already screwed my life, then yes, I believe I could have eventually had any job I wanted.

Just one thought. If everyone in the country was able to start a business, there would be no one left to do the work. So that means only those who are ruthless enough and willing enough to exploit others will suceed. Wow! that sounds wonderful!

Every citizen IS able to start a business if they were willing to make the sacrifices neccesary, but most people aren't. The point is, nobody is going to tell you you can't start that business.

Look, there are millions of people out there who through no fault of their own, either by lack of education or opportunity, or as a result of ill health or lack of the necessary intelligence or ruthlessness or skill, or particular qualifications, or drive, or skin colour, or language, or history of making mistakes (and who doesn't make mistakes), or acculturation can't get the job that pays them the top money they may well want.

Do you think people who do menial jobs prefer to exist next to the bread line? Do you think the reason members of poor families in the main remain poor generation after generation is just a co-incidence? Look about you. Use your eyes. The myths of a universal freedom to choose are just that - myths. My father could never have become a business man or held a top managerial job. He wouldn't have known how to begin, and he wouldn't have had the temperament (the one he was born with or the one he developed as a child) to carry it off.

E"very citizen IS able to start a business if they were willing to make the sacrifices neccesary". Well yes, in theory... but theory is just another word for myth. That's all very well if you have enough capital to start yourself up, have the kind of personality that can sustain it, have the know how, or know how to acquire the know how to run it. Most small businesses remain small businesses which bring in no more income than a small salary or they fail within the first three years. The idea that anyone can become a major capitalist is... yes, a myth.

The choices open to most people are limited by their understanding, their background and their education. Turn it around and look at it from the other end of the telescope. If they haven't got what it takes to become businessmen/women, willing to exploit others, the system penalises them and forces them into dead end jobs on low incomes.

The idea that no-one is going to tell someone caught in th poverty trap that they can't start a business is hardly going to give them much comfort is it. The point actually is, that the difference between oppressive societies like the soviet union and so-called democratic ones like the United States is less wide than most of us think.

Rant over

Kal wrote:Capitalism is not automatically democracy.

The false idea that captialism is democracy has lead to a lot of confusion..

Hmm. I don't know, but I suspect that democracy (of the totally non-democratic kind that is called representative democracy) is a tendency of all capitalist states, because at least some freedom of information is required for any capitalist economy to function properly.

Kal wrote:The ultimate demcoratic society is Communism. However human nature tends to corrupt communism as it gets any larger a small group of people with a common purpose. .

Communism in the nineteenthy century sense has never been tried. Lenin realised that in aristocratic/peasant Russia, Communism was impossible to achieve until it had first gone through the stage of capitalism. 'State capitalism would be an advance for us' he said. That's what the soviet union attempted and they never got beyond that attempt, before Stalin took over and claimed for no particularly good reason that Communism had now been achieved.

Kal wrote:The aim of non-violent actions to resolve terrorism issues is to make the Communities that shelter these men realise that these men are wrong, and by extentsion their cause..

We agree, bro. And by contrast the actions to destroy terrorism by force has nothing to do with the the destruction of terrorism. It is just a piece of propaganda used by western capitalist nations as an excuse to continue pursuing their historical role of controling foreign markets and by extension, foreign governments (in a nutshell).

Kal wrote:Terrorists and freedom fighters can only exist as long as their is a community to shelter them. History teaches us that main force action against these communities entrenches terrorists/freedom fighters in that population.

But governments don't like people to know that.