Art, I'm I correct in my reading comprehension that you do not mind paying more into the city coffers? . . .
. . . I'm for police enforcement so I do not have a problem with radar provided it's done fairly but to state you wish to pay more taxes, my God Art please get your head out of the governments derriere . . .
I am shocked, Baz, shocked that your reading comprehension is so wildly incorrect. Sober up, go back and read my post. Nowhere did I say that I want to pay more taxes.
Here is the essence of my first point.
Don't want to risk paying a fine? Don't speed.
Oldguyzer agrees with me:
Here's a radical solution: don't go more than a few kmph over the limit and they won't stop you. Speed and you pay. Wow....rocket science!
Does your reading comprehension lead you to believe oldguyzer "doesn't mind" paying more taxes? That's not how I read his comment.
Now, pay attention here, Baz. My second point was also very clear:
. . . photo radar worked. . . .
Didn't say anything there about wanting to pay more taxes. Just noted that photo radar brings overall traffic flow down closer to posted speed limits, therefore it worked.
I did note that many people hated photo radar, and called it a cash cow. What I didn't add is that those who hated it were, presumably, the ones who got nailed by it and had to pay their dues. Or their "taxes" as you choose to label the penalty.
But if a speeding fine is a tax, it's a voluntary tax, just like buying a lottery ticket. You can voluntarily give the government cash up front at the Lotto kiosk and gamble that your ticket may be worth more than the piece of paper it's printed on. Or you can race down the highway at 150k an hour and gamble you won't get a ticket that's going haul a mitt full of cash out of your pocket. Voluntary tax. You're welcome to it if you want to speed.
Nowhere did I say I wish to pay more taxes.
My final point was also quite simple:
. . . Every major city in this province forks out hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to install "traffic calming measures" because they can't use photo radar, which . . . could generate revenue needed to maintain roads properly.
If you consider photo radar revenue as tax, so be it. But label it correctly. It's
voluntary tax. You want to speed. Go right ahead, and if caught, pay your voluntary taxes. Your choice.
But nowhere did I say I wish to pay more taxes.
. . . I'm for police enforcement so I do not have a problem with radar provided it's done fairly . . .
Gotta confess I'm baffled by this comment, Baz. You're in favor of police enforcement and you're in favor of radar ...
provided it's done fairly . . .
What are you implying? That cops might doctor the equipment so that it adds 30k to the readout when your car comes by at the speed limit, then readjusts to subtract 20k from the readout when I come zooming by?
Get serious, what does fairness have to do with radar. It's a digital analysis of speed, cold, hard and unemotional. It's radar, whether operated by a cop who has to chase down and ticket an individual speeder or whether it's operated efficiently and cost-effectively by photo radar which doesn't require massive manpower to stop cars, which just slows traffic flow by its very presence.
As for this final comment, Baz, once again you do illustrate a lack of reading comprehension.
. . . to state you wish to pay more taxes, my God Art please get your head out of the governments derriere . . .
I used to live on a street that was deemed a speeding problem, so the road was rebuilt at a capital outlay of multi-millions of dollars to install "traffic calming" measures. That expense gets tagged onto the property taxes of homeowners on the street, not charged to those drivers from other neighborhoods who speed on that street. Photo radar could have eliminated that capital outlay cost and could have collected volunteer "taxes" to pay for other road infra-structure.
I don't have my head up "the government's derriere," Baz. I'm in favor of eliminating needless government expense.
And nowhere did I say I wish to pay more taxes.
