Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[azazel1024]

True in part, but in my limited experience, more accidents occur because a person is going too slow than that people are going to fast. At least as it relates to being in excess of the speed limit or below the speed limit. I have seen plenty of accidents where people chose to merge on to a highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident or people just generally driving down the highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident.

I can only recall one or two times seeing someone speeding causing an accident.

In the US we like our speed cameras hidden in mobile speed traps (vans) and/or non-obvious positions/coloring. At best a speed limit sign may say "Photo Enforced" below it, but 9 times in 10 that just means that periodically once or twice a month they might park a mobile photo speed trap nearby.

You also have the issue of when they don't work. Granted, the only ticket I have ever gotten was a completely bogus speeding ticket from a real live police officer. However, just the other day I watched a redlight camera snap 6 cars in a row turning on red at a traffic light. There is no turn on red restriction at that intersection (right turn, left for you Brits who drive on the wrong side of the road) and every single one of the cars came to a full and complete stop before making the turn.

That is at least 6 drivers who are now going to have to show up to court to contest a ticket they never should have gotten, nor would a police officer have issued, as I am pretty sure they are all going to get mailed fines.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I'm sure you realized that the whole point of the statement is, broadly, that less dangerous things occur if speed is lower, both because impacts are less severe, or more time is available to, well, stop, basically.

I know that, but the point is if they're not watching where they are going it doesn't really matter what speed they are going at. You can kill someone just as easily at 30mph as you can at 71mph. Speed isn't really a factor in most traffic accidents. Where it is involved it does tend to make them worse than they would have otherwise been, but that doesn't mean speed is to blame for the accident.

Speed cameras ... ignore the income generation side of it, they are used as automatic crime detectors as an alternative to having police traffic patrol cars doing the same job. But speed is the only crime they can detect, they can't detect careless/dangerous driving. So their introduction was a step backwards in terms of road safety.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree with it, too. Good drivers have nothing to fear from enforcement cameras, and I know from personal experience that cameras DO make people drive more sensibly. Near where I work there's a road junction where, until recently, a red traffic light seemed to mean "put your foot down and drive very fast through the red light". They've now installed cameras at the junction, and people stop and obey the red light.

Apparently you missed my post about how I actually know someone who was financially harmed by those cameras.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

that doesn't mean speed is to blame for the accident.

Of course it does, at least partly. If the speed limit was 20kmph and everyone stuck to it, there would be hardly any accidents involving more than a single vehicle, since everyone would have ample time for reaction and avoidance. At 100kmph, not so much. More speed, less reaction time available, more accidents. This has been empirically proven over and over and over again.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

True in part, but in my limited experience, more accidents occur because a person is going too slow than that people are going to fast. At least as it relates to being in excess of the speed limit or below the speed limit. I have seen plenty of accidents where people chose to merge on to a highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident or people just generally driving down the highway going well below the posted speed limit causing an accident...............

I don't mean to be impolite, but your phrase "limited experience" says a lot.
Ask any traffic law enforcement officer, and you will find your opening statement is ... incorrect. And my extensive experience, at times 50-60,000 miles a year, have shown me it is.
Of course you can cause an accident at any speed, or stationary, but you are more likely to do so if you are travelling fast - which is why speed limits are imposed. It isn't just a fad you know.
I've even witnessed a young lad , in a "modded" vehicle, slam into the rear of another, in a line of cars waiting to exit, in a Tesco car park, (which was a bit surreal) doing what turned out to be over 30mph. He simply said he didn't realise he was going too fast - a "defence" slightly marred by the tyre screech that caught my attention, and the two long tracks of laid rubber....
Result - two hospital admissions, one lengthy, two write-offs, and a civil prosecution. Luckily no pedestrians were involved.

And, anamardol, "Apparently you missed my post about how I actually know someone who was financially harmed by those cameras" - I didn't, and it is unfortunate, but financial harm is not a very legitimate reason for what is still breaking the law - a law aimed at avoiding harm to people - that we all know about.

And finally, mr. ploppy, "You can kill someone just as easily at 30mph as you can at 71mph.".......
Sorry, but obviously this is incorrect, because the impact is more severe. An injury recieved by being hit by an object travelling at 30mph, is less severe than being hit by the same object travellin at 71mph.
(In my car park incident, the damage would have been horrendous.)
Given the choice, go for 30. You could try it, but I wouldn't advise it - just ask in the local A & E unit.....

I'm not a "hang 'em shoot 'em" merchant, but sensible laws - and some aren't, perhaps, but you have to draw lines at some point, and most support them in a democracy - like speeding limits are fine by me if it protects human life. We know they are there, we don't have to break them, it's not an erosion of your civil liberty - unless you have a yen to take risks with other people's lives that is.

Forgotten what this thread started life as now............

[Ekaros]

Speed hasn't killed anyone. Acceleration is the true culprit. Ofc they are quite directly related...

I belive that stopping internet piracy is impossible and not worth it, some lose money someone else gets sale, industry must find a way to get the revenue, and sueing people isn't it. On other hand physical piracy and when money is involved is totaly different thing...

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

And finally, mr. ploppy, "You can kill someone just as easily at 30mph as you can at 71mph.".......
Sorry, but obviously this is incorrect, because the impact is more severe. An injury recieved by being hit by an object travelling at 30mph, is less severe than being hit by the same object travellin at 71mph.
............

Usually it isn't the car hitting them that causes death, it's when they bounce off the car and hit their head on the tarmac.

[azazel1024]

I was being somewhat facecious about my limited experience. I am also good friends with a highway patrol officer and have worked with several police departments in college.

Speed causes plenty of accidents and tons of fatal ones. However, for every accident where a vehicle is going 90mph and crashes in to another car or leaves the road way and flips or wraps itself around a tree or pole, there are half a dozen accidents where someone merges too slowly, pulls on to a road and fails to accelerate properly, or is just generally going too slow (IE well below the speed limit) and someone does not see them until too late that cause an accident. Fortunately many of those accidents are not fatal...as you pointed out, lower speed accidents tend to not be as dangerous, but plenty of those accidents ARE fatal or cause severe injuries and damage.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

someone does not see them until too late

That is what causes the accident, not the speed they are travelling at. "He came from nowhere" is what they usually use as an excuse. But last I checked, teleportation hasn't been invented yet, so what they really mean is "I couldn't be bothered looking". It's a combination of poor observational skills, a feeling of immunity, and things inside the car to fiddle with.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

And, anamardol, "Apparently you missed my post about how I actually know someone who was financially harmed by those cameras" - I didn't, and it is unfortunate, but financial harm is not a very legitimate reason for what is still breaking the law - a law aimed at avoiding harm to people - that we all know about.

Just so I have this correct.

You read my story about someone who was following the law and fined because the person NEXT to them broke the law, and you said,

financial harm is not a very legitimate reason for what is still breaking the law

So you believe that it is (or should be) illegal to be in the same vicinity as someone who is doing something illegal?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

It's a combination of poor observational skills, a feeling of immunity, and things inside the car to fiddle with.

Or maybe one is even being fiddled with. I hear it can happen.

[wyndslash]

*munches on popcorn*

so what were we guys talking about again?

So I've read the whole thread from page one, and enjoyed the compelling and intelligent arguments from everyone. However, I am genuinely confused. It seems that many people are opposed to the efforts, and from what I've read so far, it doesn't seem all that bad (but consider where I live, haha). We received a notification back then from the police, telling my brother that he was hacking, but it wasn't him. So essentially, had we not received a visit from the police, we wouldn't have known that someone was tinkering with our IP.

My question is this: what exactly is it that you want to happen? No government involved? Limited involvement, what?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

*

My question is this: what exactly is it that you want to happen? No government involved? Limited involvement, what?

I don't see that it is a government's role to spend tax payers' money on something that only benefits one industry when that industry can easily afford to pay for it themselves. There are plenty of other industries that are not making hundreds of billions in profit every year that are a lot more deserving of government help.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't see that it is a government's role to spend tax payers' money on something that only benefits one industry when that industry can easily afford to pay for it themselves. There are plenty of other industries that are not making hundreds of billions in profit every year that are a lot more deserving of government help.

Piracy does not only affect one industry, and nor does it only affect large corporations. Book authors, software authors, film makers, TV production companies, magazine publishers (and I'm sure there are more to add to the list) - all are affected by piracy and, as we've discussed before, it's not just the large corporations who are hurt, but individuals. You appear to be suggesting that all these people, industries, and companies, should not have the protection of the law to prevent their products from being illegally copied and distributed.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Piracy does not only affect one industry, and nor does it only affect large corporations. Book authors, software authors, film makers, TV production companies, magazine publishers (and I'm sure there are more to add to the list) - all are affected by piracy and, as we've discussed before, it's not just the large corporations who are hurt, but individuals. You appear to be suggesting that all these people, industries, and companies, should not have the protection of the law to prevent their products from being illegally copied and distributed.

And you appear to be suggesting that all these people have a monolithic opinion about how their intellectual property should be protected. Can you... please stop doing that? There are many authors who are pro-piracy and genuinely believe that it helps them financially. Piracy is a very complicated and complex issue and pretending it isn't is not conducive to discussion, I think. Nor is implicitly disappearing people and corporations who are in favor of 'piracy' of their works as forms of advertising -- these people do exist, after all.

/spoken as someone who has a book and would be very happy if people were to torrent that sucker.