Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
I'd suspect more in car accidents, definitely. But that begs another question, are all (or most) accidents a result of velocity, or as a result of something else? Would resources be better spent with plain clothed cops patrolling bar parking lots (and train stations) for drunk drivers rather than shiny new vehicles parked on the side of a road or zipping down Deerfoot? Probably. Would it reduce collisions and deaths? Yep. Would it be as lucrative? nope. Do they already do it? Possibly, but definitely not like they should. Checkstops are good, but they can typically be circumvented if a buddy has a cellphone.
The second question. Are speeding tickets actual deterrents, or are they simply a financial inconvenience? I don't think so. I suspect near every person on this board has had at least one, and I'd bet they still do more than the limit at least every so often.
|
Some good points Thunderball. But I guess the theory is that if word gets out that the police have all sorts of different ghost vehicles, then maybe people will stop doing things that cause accidents. Things like not signalling, following too close, cutting off traffic, not yielding, etc. The fact that they collect fines for speeding, well that may only be a smaller percentage of the cause of crashes. But for one thing speeding is easier to prove. Independant measuring equipment measured your speed, and isn't up to a "he said-he said" in court about signalling.
Global ran a thing on the ghost cars a few months ago; so it's not like the police don't want us to know about it.
As for the fines not being a deterrent, I guess I'm starting to think it might be. A few months ago I got a speeding ticket; my second in a couple of years. I've eased back on the throttle a little bit; now I usually keep it 5-10 over instead of 20. Now that tickets are $120 instead of $53, it does make a slightly bigger dent than it used to.