›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

New traffic laser developed to snag tailgaters.

GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
edited October 2006 in Technology
See link. Ths makes me happy seeing as when I was in Buffalo, I'd be driving on the I-90 going 65 with some schmuck in an SUV practically in my trunk.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=8620

Comments

  • JasonJason
    I hate I-90 around Buffalo. I get stuck in epic traffic jams every time I head north to visit my parents. I was stuck bumper-to-bumper last Thanksgiving. But once you get past Rochester and on to Syracuse, it's smooth sailing.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited October 2006
    Nothing is worse than the beltway around Washington D.C, that thing is the loop of doom.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • baltmatrixbaltmatrix
    495 (a.k.a. the Capital Beltwak) this past weekend wasn't too bad. But NOTHING is as bad as I-95. I have seen folks run off the road by school buses doing well over 90.
  • AndrewAndrew
    495 (a.k.a. the Capital Beltwak) this past weekend wasn't too bad. But NOTHING is as bad as I-95. I have seen folks run off the road by school buses doing well over 90.
    Agreed. The old Woodrow Wilson bridge was horrible as well.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    My concern with this article is the following statement:
    In Colorado, the general rule of separation between cars is one car length for every 10 mph.
    And this:
    Colorado law says a car must maintain a “reasonable and prudent distance” from the car in front.
    Seems to me if they are going to enforce this, they should come up with a clear-cut definition.
  • JasonJason
    That's the law in Ohio, too. How is it not clear-cut, though? If you say you must keep 10 feet behind another vehicle at all times, that's clearly not safe traveling at 65 mph. It would be ludicrous to mandate a 50-foot clearance in a 25 mph zone as well. The law is built to take inertia into consideration. And a "reasonable and prudent distance" is no less specific than "reckless operation." It leaves the door open to good judgement.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    How is it not clear-cut, though?
    Reasonable and prudent is certainly a standard that would pass legal muster. I just don't want to worry about an officer that has a different definition than I do. ;-)
  • JasonJason
    I hear the cops are all out to get you, meow. ^_^
  • AndrewAndrew
    This might help.
  • RymRym
    The law in many places is being updated to "x seconds of travel time behind another vehicle." That way, there's a clear, easy to remember, and easy to calculate distance and an objective means of enforcement.

    I personally try to keep at minimum a 2 second gap regardless of where I'm driving. If I can, I'll leave a lot more. I speed when it's safe and prudent to do so, but tailgating (and running red lights/stop signs, not signalling, passing illegally, failing to yield, etc...) is a fairly dangerous and stupid thing to do.
Sign In or Register to comment.