whatlol
35 traffic fatalities, statistically 10 will be related to speeding.
raise $578 million over four years
What do you think their real reasoning behind this is?
Some states even have laws that slower traffic must stay right, regardless of what your speedometer says. What's important is that you aren't impeding the flow of traffic, if traffic is moving 10 MPH over the limit but you refuse to go above it, no problem move right.
It's funny this article says "Avoid expensive traffic tickets, pay less for car insurance" when the car insurance is mandatory and they have cameras watching your car constantly. Seems dystopian to me.
DC reported 558 drug overdose fatalities in the past 12 months, but only 35 traffic fatalities in 2022 (from all sources, not necessarily speeding involved, but speeding is apparently a factor in 29% of traffic fatalities, 29% of 35 is 10.15, so we can say DC had about 10 traffic fatalities related to speeding in 2022). I'm not saying "speeding" isn't an issue there, but..... maybe they should focus elsewhere?
It's also funny this article says
"There's already some support for that hypothesis. A recent national survey found that 60 percent of U.S. motorists thought that automated enforcement was "mostly about raising revenue," presumably even when they're sited on calm, well-designed roads that make it clear in other ways that safety is a top priority."
Well yes in fact I do think this is about raising revenue because this project is apparently going to raise $578 million over four years, where is that money coming from, I wonder??
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/traffic-data https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding https://wtop.com/dc/2023/03/dc-mayors-comeback-budget-adds-t...
Don't get me wrong, speeding is an issue, sure. But is it really THE issue they should be focusing on, or is this just a cash grab? And, is "speeding" truly THE issue, or is it unsafe driving? There is a difference.
This really is where I have the issue. If I have to pay for my ISP to allow me to access the internet and use my bandwidth to download it, my power bill to allow my PC to install it, use up my storage space to host the software, then I should be able to do whatever I want to/with it and you shouldn't hinder me from doing so.
If I have to pay a fee for premium, and then additional components are downloaded and installed, fair game.
I wonder if there's any law that covers such a scenario, aside from EULA allowing the software dev to do what they want as long as the user agrees.
Gonna be honest there are other people/places to blame. I'm not saying your target is or isn't a contributor to the issue, but they really aren't the biggest factor.
Where do you draw the line?
Next they'll be making you pay a fee to use low gears, or a power steering fee, a radio listening license, a Bluetooth permit, a reverse allowance, power window season pass, air condition authorization.