Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
Is that not a hypothetical strawman? No #### Memorial would be better in that scenario.
|
It’s not a strawman, it’s a hypothetical.
But since you agree that Memorial would be a better choice than the empty playground zone, you agree that it’s probably stupid to ban them from making the better choice, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
Aside from not having claimed this to be true, it's a dumb question. Without knowing the extent of reduction of deployment that will come from the reduced revenue, it is impossible to answer... you'd also need crash data from an extended period of photo enforcement in a given area and a long period of data after, for each site.
|
It’s not a dumb question. You claimed safety was your concern and you are celebrating the changes (remember, “Acey won”) so I’d expect you to have a better answer than “it’s impossible to answer.” You called it a win, so why is it a win for safety?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey
Did you not say it benefits us all? Regardless of the fishing holes being gone, I'm willing to pay higher tax for increased manned enforcement in playground zones. Are you?
|
I am. And that could have been accomplished without reducing the amount resources and enforcement available. Seems pretty counter intuitive to say you want more enforcement and you’re willing to pay while celebrating less enforcement and an unnecessary stripping of the budget.