Sorry, but IDGaF about Newsome anymore. He has been vetoing some good bills lately, and while this is probably long overdue for repeal, it feels like a wink to oil companies in light of his other recent actions.
Pander harder, Gavin. Unless you demonstrate a better pattern of behavior, you won’t get my vote in the primaries.
He’s out of his mind if he thinks any conservative is going to be interested in him as a centrist. Just the word “California” makes conservatives in my area shudder.
Controversial opinion here, I have no problems with speed cameras. Speed cameras only ticket people breaking the law unbiasedly. The easiest way to not get a speeding ticket, is to not speed. That’s it.
My only problem is when the ticket is set to low, as in a ticket is issued within 10% or the speed limit. There has to be room for error between speedometer, tire size, and just human error.
If you can’t maintain a reasonable speed in the posted area, then you shouldn’t be on the road. If you can and you excessively speed anyway, then fuck you, take your ticket.
This opinion comes from someone who consistently speeds, but keeps it in relatively close.
Imo it’s just a bullshit revenue generator, and an invasion of privacy/expansion of the surveillance state. Cops should only be focused reckless drivers, drunk drivers, and people on their phones that are actually putting people in danger. Someone accidentally doing 35 in a 25 isn’t a danger. I haven’t gotten a speeding ticket in over a decade, and I’m a very safe driver. I can almost guarantee once these go into effect, they will put them in places where the flow of traffic is generally not going the speed limit on most days, and just rake in money. I’ll probably start getting tickets, and it will impact my insurance premiums.
How often do you “accidentally” go 10 mph over the speed limit, especially in locations that you frequently travel? I live in a state that has speed and red light cameras. In my city I can specifically point to at least 7, 2 on my commute to work. I’ve never got a ticket from any of them. Legally, there has to be signs around that say there is photo enforcement. If you’re paying attention to the road, like you should be when driving, there is almost no excuse for getting a speed camera ticket. Sure it’s a revenue generator, and I very much subscribe to, “all cops are bad” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s enforcing laws with absolutely no bias. I’ve never seen a traffic camera shoot an unarmed civilian at a routine traffic stop and they are effective at slowing traffic in those areas, anecdotally speaking.
Not arguing with your main point, but “absolutely no bias” is a stretch. The camera itself may not be biased, but other factors like camera placement, street design, and fines that aren’t scaled to income mean they still disproportionately impact black, brown, and poor people.
Highway 280 in the bay area was designed for high speed driving according to my uncle who was a caltrans engineer. He says it was designed for 80 mph speed limit in some parts. I’m trying to find a source on that, but found mostly reddit posts saying the same. If you go 65, you will be tailgated. Some people here call it “Do 80” and the traffic flows at 75 -80 mph. The people who are actually putting people in danger on that road will be going 90+. Highway 5 as well as highway 99 traffic routinely flows at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit as well. 10 mph is negligible for highway driving imo. I rarely even look at my speedometer when driving, just go with the flow, move to the right if someone is coming up driving faster, pass on the left when applicable. That’s how it should be, not having people try to focus on going some arbitrary number. People should be focusing on the road, not the speedometer. The biggest danger to drivers and pedestrians is people under the influence, people on their phones, and reckless drivers who change lanes frequently and tailgate people. We should be focusing our efforts there if we want safer roads, but the state doesn’t want that, they want revenue. Instead of going after true nuisance drivers, their solution is to put cameras that catch anyone going above an arbitrary number and give them a ticket. It’s bullshit.
I can almost guarantee once these go into effect, they will put them in places where the flow of traffic is generally not going the speed limit on most days
So you are saying they will put these cameras in places where a lot of people are breaking the speed limit?
No, I’m saying we have low speed limits relative to what’s actually a safe driving speed, and putting a camera there to punish everyone for driving as they normally do is a shitty move.
That’s not how speed limits work. They are legally required to be raised if traffic is going faster:
“Once the road is built, engineers will evaluate the existing speeds by measuring the operating speed. They often do this by measuring the speed that 85 percent of drivers are travelling at or below, called 85th percentile speed.”
Tell me 1 instance of a freeway that raised speed in recent years. Practically every freeway in CA that’s not the 5 has a 65 mph limit. Traffic absolutely doesn’t flow at that speed on a bunch of them.
Sorry, but IDGaF about Newsome anymore. He has been vetoing some good bills lately, and while this is probably long overdue for repeal, it feels like a wink to oil companies in light of his other recent actions.
Pander harder, Gavin. Unless you demonstrate a better pattern of behavior, you won’t get my vote in the primaries.
He’s a mixed bag. He’s totally moving to the center so he can run in 2028. Totally disappointed with him
He’s out of his mind if he thinks any conservative is going to be interested in him as a centrist. Just the word “California” makes conservatives in my area shudder.
Reagan did it
That was a very diffrent California, and one that hadn’t been the avitar of conservative hate for decades. Cali governor is a bad place to run from
He was the governor of California…
And what’s newsoms job? The other person is saying no one from CA would ever appeal to the everyman
They didn’t say that, they said that no conservative will support a centrist from California.
And they’re wrong. All he has to do is drum up a bunch of Reagan imagery.
He just approved speed cameras in the state. He’s dead to me now.
Controversial opinion here, I have no problems with speed cameras. Speed cameras only ticket people breaking the law unbiasedly. The easiest way to not get a speeding ticket, is to not speed. That’s it.
My only problem is when the ticket is set to low, as in a ticket is issued within 10% or the speed limit. There has to be room for error between speedometer, tire size, and just human error.
If you can’t maintain a reasonable speed in the posted area, then you shouldn’t be on the road. If you can and you excessively speed anyway, then fuck you, take your ticket.
This opinion comes from someone who consistently speeds, but keeps it in relatively close.
Imo it’s just a bullshit revenue generator, and an invasion of privacy/expansion of the surveillance state. Cops should only be focused reckless drivers, drunk drivers, and people on their phones that are actually putting people in danger. Someone accidentally doing 35 in a 25 isn’t a danger. I haven’t gotten a speeding ticket in over a decade, and I’m a very safe driver. I can almost guarantee once these go into effect, they will put them in places where the flow of traffic is generally not going the speed limit on most days, and just rake in money. I’ll probably start getting tickets, and it will impact my insurance premiums.
Unless you’re a pedestrian of course. That’s approximately the difference between a 25% and a 50% fatality rate
Pedestrians in California? Do tell.
School areas are 25 mph. Kids from elementary through high school are walking to and from school in my town of ~150,000.
How often do you “accidentally” go 10 mph over the speed limit, especially in locations that you frequently travel? I live in a state that has speed and red light cameras. In my city I can specifically point to at least 7, 2 on my commute to work. I’ve never got a ticket from any of them. Legally, there has to be signs around that say there is photo enforcement. If you’re paying attention to the road, like you should be when driving, there is almost no excuse for getting a speed camera ticket. Sure it’s a revenue generator, and I very much subscribe to, “all cops are bad” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s enforcing laws with absolutely no bias. I’ve never seen a traffic camera shoot an unarmed civilian at a routine traffic stop and they are effective at slowing traffic in those areas, anecdotally speaking.
Not arguing with your main point, but “absolutely no bias” is a stretch. The camera itself may not be biased, but other factors like camera placement, street design, and fines that aren’t scaled to income mean they still disproportionately impact black, brown, and poor people.
Highway 280 in the bay area was designed for high speed driving according to my uncle who was a caltrans engineer. He says it was designed for 80 mph speed limit in some parts. I’m trying to find a source on that, but found mostly reddit posts saying the same. If you go 65, you will be tailgated. Some people here call it “Do 80” and the traffic flows at 75 -80 mph. The people who are actually putting people in danger on that road will be going 90+. Highway 5 as well as highway 99 traffic routinely flows at a higher rate of speed than the posted speed limit as well. 10 mph is negligible for highway driving imo. I rarely even look at my speedometer when driving, just go with the flow, move to the right if someone is coming up driving faster, pass on the left when applicable. That’s how it should be, not having people try to focus on going some arbitrary number. People should be focusing on the road, not the speedometer. The biggest danger to drivers and pedestrians is people under the influence, people on their phones, and reckless drivers who change lanes frequently and tailgate people. We should be focusing our efforts there if we want safer roads, but the state doesn’t want that, they want revenue. Instead of going after true nuisance drivers, their solution is to put cameras that catch anyone going above an arbitrary number and give them a ticket. It’s bullshit.
So you are saying they will put these cameras in places where a lot of people are breaking the speed limit?
No, I’m saying we have low speed limits relative to what’s actually a safe driving speed, and putting a camera there to punish everyone for driving as they normally do is a shitty move.
That’s not how speed limits work. They are legally required to be raised if traffic is going faster:
Per federal FHWS/MUTCD regulations.
Tell me 1 instance of a freeway that raised speed in recent years. Practically every freeway in CA that’s not the 5 has a 65 mph limit. Traffic absolutely doesn’t flow at that speed on a bunch of them.
The last thing we need in this hellscape are more fucking cameras
I’m just some white pedestrian- I like the idea of speed cameras in the city as a deterrent but other than that I’m not sure how I feel.
The way I heard it was:
Speed cameras reduce traffic stops which reduce unnecessary police interactions and violence. So it’s commendable
But it obviously increases the surveillance state, which is disgusting
Not sure how to weigh those against each other.