Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Old news. (Score 1) 166

by Opportunist (#48645827) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

At 30 mph your braking time (the time between slamming the brakes on and you stopping) is 1.8 seconds. Reaction time varies, but depending on circumstances it usually is between half a second and a second.

At 55 we're already at well over 2.5s for braking alone, without reaction time.

All of this assuming dry weather and tire and brake condition.

In short, not slamming the brakes down will not allow you to come to a stop before the traffic light turns red.

Comment: Re:Old news. (Score 1) 166

by Opportunist (#48645809) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

Allow me to present a sensible traffic light.

Please tell me how in the world you could possibly be surprised by it turning yellow. If your reaction speed is THAT low, you should NOT be on the road!

(and yes, that yellow phase is a bit short, but essentially you should not even enter the intersection at yellow anymore)

Comment: Re:Old news. (Score 1) 166

by Opportunist (#48645791) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

I expect him to have insurance because, at least in my country, your number plates are gone if you don't. You simply don't get any unless you can prove that you're covered. And even if he doesn't pay his premium for a time, his insurance is required to cover him until they can be assed to cash in his plates (so guess who is REALLY interested in you NOT having any license plates when you stop paying for your insurance?).

Trust me, whoever is on the road with license plates in my country HAS insurance. And without plates you don't get far, our police kinda wants you to have some.

Comment: Re:Old news. (Score 1) 166

by Opportunist (#48644233) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

Actually I have on more than one occasion. Funny enough, never in front of a traffic light.

I don't know about your country, in mine it's easy: You rear end someone, you're guilty. Period. There is no good explanation you could possibly give why you couldn't keep enough distance that you had enough time to react and stop your vehicle before slamming into another one.

I know exactly one case that didn't end like this, and only because the rear-ending car could PROVE that the other one was slamming into him in reverse instead of the other way around.

Comment: Re:Once a week forever (Score 1) 214

Yes they do. Scammers, like everyone who runs a business (and scamming is nothing else to them) need to make money with their time. All you have to do to be considered poison to them is to steal their time. That costs your time, too, once or twice, but usually after a few runs they'll never bother you again, simply because you're not worth the time.

Plus, it's fun to screw with them.

Comment: Re:Old news. (Score 2) 166

by Opportunist (#48643953) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

Because I will slam the brakes to stop. NO matter what. No matter how fast I am. No matter how close the person behind me is. No matter whether I even KNOW that there will be an accident. I will stop instead of running the risk of entering the intersection on a red light. If I get rear ended, his insurance will pay. If I get a ticket, I have to pay.

Safety? It's about money. On BOTH ends of the matter.

It's not so hard to lift yourself by your bootstraps once you're off the ground. -- Daniel B. Luten

Working...