Roadblock and speed trap warnings using tech

xrapidx said:
I don't think drunk driving is right - but 90% of us probably do it.

I bet hardly anyone knows just how little over the limit is ...
Click to expand...

+1

I can drive exactly the same with 3 brandy's, yet it will probably be way over
 
LancelotSA said:
I really do not think drunk driving and speeding should be discussed in the same topic unless one is referring to speeds in excess of 120km/h.



In further confirmation of what said above I too am opposed to those driving far in excess of the 120km/h limit but I have major issues with some of the speed limits imposed on our roads. I am yet to get fined doing over 120 but have got a number of fines in areas that are 60 or 70 zones that really should not be. I gave this example the other day :

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=3457148&postcount=4

And another spot I have been trapped in is here :

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/medium/Clipboard0124.jpg

Now keep in mind that this is a double lane road with an island in between both directions. It is the back freeway up from Durban to Pinetown. Clearly the limit needs to reduce when you come into Pinetown and get to the robots but where they are trapping you is literally the required 300m from the 60 sign. You are doing 100, this is a steep down hill to the robots so you would literally have to put on brakes hard if you wanted to get down to the limit in time. I have now been caught here twice doing 70 odd. This is what pisses me off. This has got nothing to do with road safety but rather money making. Don't even try and tell me that me doing 75 in the approach to a robot on a major road in an industrial area is the most dangerous thing happening on our roads!
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that there are many areas which are zoned incorrectly...
 
Majority of my fines are in low speed zones, e.g 60 zones.

But I feel there's no difference in going 140 in a 120 zone, or 70 in a 60 zone - the law is the law.
 
xrapidx said:
Majority of my fines are in low speed zones, e.g 60 zones.

But I feel there's no difference in going 140 in a 120 zone, or 70 in a 60 zone - the law is the law.
Click to expand...

The idiocy of the above comment has me at a loss for words
 
K3NS31 said:
The idiocy of the above comment has me at a loss for words
Click to expand...

Same goes for your statement - I have no clue what you're on about?

Besides the fact that your lack of manners is only equal to your lack of intelligence.
 
Ok, here we go:
1. Anyone who's ever driven a car knows there's a world of difference in terms of reaction time, reflexes, etc. between 70km/h and 140km/h, making the latter orders of magnitude more dangerous than the former. To say there's no difference between the 2 is idiocy. Yes that's a tad rude, but you deserve it.
2. As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, many speed traps are setup on badly zoned 60km/h stretches of road for the express purpose of making a quick buck, rather than for safety concerns.
3. Just because there's a law about something doesn't make it right, or even sensible.
4. etc.
 
Excuse me but Metro Police are supposed to be "all out" to make the roads safer and encourage good behaviour on the roads, and as such should be encouraging any methods or services that do the same, so the SMS network should be encouraged, not made illegal, ditto the flashing of lights should be encouraged, not made illegal because these things make people drive more carefully and respectfully thereby making our streets safer. Instead of trying to disguise themselves as blades of grass and extorting invalid bribes for equally invalid "offences" Metro should be out there ... visible, encouraging responsible driving. Instead their addiction to corruption is causing dissent in the community and creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
 
K3NS31 said:
Ok, here we go:
1. Anyone who's ever driven a car knows there's a world of difference in terms of reaction time, reflexes, etc. between 70km/h and 140km/h, making the latter orders of magnitude more dangerous than the former. To say there's no difference between the 2 is idiocy. Yes that's a tad rude, but you deserve it.
2. As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, many speed traps are setup on badly zoned 60km/h stretches of road for the express purpose of making a quick buck, rather than for safety concerns.
3. Just because there's a law about something doesn't make it right, or even sensible.
4. etc.
Click to expand...


Ok - so because there's a law that you feel isn't right, it isn't the law

I think the only idiocy here is your dribble - the statement was clear, the law is the law - whether you like it or not - so get over yourself.
 
K3NS31 said:
Ok, here we go:
1. Anyone who's ever driven a car knows there's a world of difference in terms of reaction time, reflexes, etc. between 70km/h and 140km/h, making the latter orders of magnitude more dangerous than the former. To say there's no difference between the 2 is idiocy. Yes that's a tad rude, but you deserve it.
2. As has already been pointed out by others in this thread, many speed traps are setup on badly zoned 60km/h stretches of road for the express purpose of making a quick buck, rather than for safety concerns.
3. Just because there's a law about something doesn't make it right, or even sensible.
4. etc.
Click to expand...

Still breaking the law regardless. That's what he means with his statement. He's not comparing speeds, reaction times etc. So you say its less wrong to drive over the speed limit at lower speeds than at higher speeds? I think sir, you are an idiot.
 
J0n0 said:
Still breaking the law regardless. That's what he means with his statement. He's not comparing speeds, reaction times etc. So you say its less wrong to drive over the speed limit at lower speeds than at higher speeds? I think sir, you are an idiot.
Click to expand...

Next he'll say its ok to go faster in a M3 with decent brakes as it is to go faster in an old vw Beetle - because the one can come to a stop WAY faster.

Maybe he should put forward that speed limits should be calculated based on vehicle specifications. :rolleyes:
 
We could always take heed of the UK motorists and stop the "Cash Cow" force them to not hide away and more people will see them and actually slow down taking the picture and fining the driver will maybe only slow him/her down next time, in the meantime the driver continues and may cause an accident



[URL="http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm"]
 
We all know it's less wrong to drive over the speed limit at lower speeds (eg. 70 in a 60 zone) especially in non-residential areas. That's just common sense and not many drivers can honestly say they don't do it.

And that's the issue. His original comment was in reply to a line of argument from several ppl here that cops are making money off us by trapping in 60 zones that shouldn't even be limited to 60 in the 1st place.
The law's the law is not an appropriate argument. We know it's "breaking" the law, we don't care. The issue at hand is safety and speed traps.
Also, he was definitely implying that 140 is as dangerous as 70. No it's not.
 
I was commenting according to the law - the next bit of the sentence, on the exact same line, should have made that clear, but obviously you're the type that requires pretty pictures to get things across.

You can't decide 70 in a 60 zone is safer than 140 in a 120 zone - a lot more comes into play.... i.e. car doing 70 in a 60 zone, and a different car doing 140 in a 120 zone, road conditions, road location....etc,etc.
 
K3NS31 said:
We all know it's less wrong to drive over the speed limit at lower speeds (eg. 70 in a 60 zone) especially in non-residential areas. That's just common sense and not many drivers can honestly say they don't do it.

And that's the issue. His original comment was in reply to a line of argument from several ppl here that cops are making money off us by trapping in 60 zones that shouldn't even be limited to 60 in the 1st place.
The law's the law is not an appropriate argument. We know it's "breaking" the law, we don't care. The issue at hand is safety and speed traps.
Also, he was definitely implying that 140 is as dangerous as 70. No it's not.
Click to expand...

70 in a 60 is actually worse. That means you are traveling faster in a built up area where there is more chance of people/kids/animals crossing the road in front of you.

As the law stands I beleive it is scaled on the amount of KM/H that you are over the limit and fined acordingly. ie: 80 in a 60 is the same amount as 120 in a 100 and 140 in a 120.
 
A good point
(and one that makes far more sense than "Because it's the law")

sorry, that was in reply to XrapidX above, not Kosmik

Kosmik, I (and others) was mainly referring to non-built up areas that shouldn't be 60 zones but are. These are areas where most ppl drive faster. The cops know this, and trap there to make money off us.
 
K3NS31 said:
A good point
(and one that makes far more sense than "Because it's the law")
Click to expand...

So because I don't like it being illegal to kill someone - I can go ahead and do it, its only the law...

Or does the "law doesn't matter" rule only apply when suited?
 
LilJohn said:
Not true at all, spoke person for JMPD was on eTV news talking about warnings about roadblocks on facebook. He said that he thinks it will help their course since motorist would no that they need to be sober when travelling on road with roadblock.
Click to expand...

Last year on TV they stated that if you indicate in anyway to another driver that there is a roadblock or camera ahead that you your be prosecuted.

It is illigal, do I care ?

No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X