[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You can always tell when Pepsi realizes he's losing the argument because his posts start to devolve into this weird sort of 'gotcha' ad hom. snark. "This one strawman edge case I dreamed up in rebuttal is clearly stupid so their argument is worthless! Morans!"

“Losing the argument”? relax Mel, this is just a conversation, you’re not “getting the dub” or “dishing out L’s” lol. My position is pretty straightforward and unemotional, so you can keep making up narratives about what’s going on in my head until it makes you feel better, but I’m pretty nonplussed about it.

The hypothetical I presented, which isn’t a strawman (learn the difference, sounds stupid to just throw the word around), illustrated my point, which is that the UCP’s changes are too arbitrary and too rigid. It’s how you can tell they aren’t done with safety in mind, because it’s a nonsensical way to increase safety.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The idea that anyone is banning them from making the better choice is hilarious.

But literally true, in exactly the scenario I laid out.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

A small reduction of the 6-8% of the budget (not 10-20% and we don't know by how much that 6-8% line item will be reduced). I said every vehicle in the fleet, whatever the size of that fleet is. When enforcement is being done, I care about the enforcement being done in the right areas for the right reasons, and the changes coming into effect April 1 support that.

They don’t, as they remove at least some of the right areas for the right reasons, and leave other areas that aren’t right or could be deployed for the wrong reasons, which calls into question whether that’s something you actually care about.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The strangest thing about all this is how out-of-character this position is for you; you're typically the type of guy who I would think would have a problem with exploitative, predatory policing in the name of revenue. Not sure I like this bootlicker cosplay you've got going on.

You’re probably confused because you’re more interested getting that “dub” than actually just entertaining the an idea that isn’t yours.

Policing in the name of revenue is not inherently bad to me, so long as the resources generated substantially outweigh the resources spent and there’s no discrimination and the police treat people well. Photo radar checks all those boxes. You speed, you get a ticket; you don’t, you won’t. It increases revenue they can use to police and, more importantly, it means law abiding citizens have to pay less for it. I get you think all of that is bad, no confusion there. I’m just rejecting some of the reasons presented, because it’s clear people are just glomming onto some that make their position sound more righteous.

And I get that too, saying you’re against “predatory, exploitative policing!” and “safety first! right areas! right reasons!” sounds way cooler than “I just hate photo radar.” But it kind of falls apart as soon as you look at the changes and realize… oh yeah, those changes are a genuinely terrible way to accomplish those things you care about.

The strange part, if you want one, is that the idea of approaching these problems in a way that doesn’t start with eliminating photo radar is apparently taboo. Or you can’t think of a single better idea, which is terrifying.

And conveniently not mentioned here, is that they’re also forcing the removal of speed on green cameras. Care to explain how that helps… anyone? That’s not exactly a fleet car they just move around.