California wants you on Camera! 267

Swell AI Transcript: Cali Think you want to be on camera finial.mp3

SPEAKER_01 So if I start the show with what up, what up, what up and then go into some advertising pitch Do you think our ratings and listenership will go up just like it does for that other car podcast?

SPEAKER_00 Want to talk about cars CRX, and even down here, great-granddad Spearless. Welcome to No Driving Gloves, the Car Talk Authority, where experience, knowledge, and controversy share the same seat. Enjoy the ride. Now your hosts, John and

SPEAKER_02 Yo, yo, yo, John, it sure will.

SPEAKER_01 Or should we just say, welcome to No Driving Gloves, everyone. You know, you're getting an adventurous ride where we might say some things that we shouldn't and a lot of things. And obviously there's two, two of us here recording.

SPEAKER_02 Well, maybe one and a half.

SPEAKER_01 Yeah. Well, actually it's two and a half. The little dog's in here in the studio participating. So if you hear on the mic, that's the dog. What we're here to do is talk about the land of the car, the land of the free, the sunny state of California, right?

SPEAKER_02 Wait a second, John, because a lot of the automotive podcasts, other than your favorite, No Driving Gloves, come out of California. How much longer are they going to be able to have automotive podcasts in California?

SPEAKER_01 They're going to have a lot of them. They're just going to be brought to you by General Electric.

SPEAKER_02 Or is PG&E still around, Pacific Gas and Electric?

SPEAKER_01 I believe so. I believe I've heard them yell about it. But you're right. Podcasts could go away because they might not have the electricity in the grid to allow them to power their studios.

SPEAKER_02 Exactly. We will quickly become number one in the automotive podcast. Look at that.

SPEAKER_01 Maybe we've moved up. I mean, every now and then we'll get into the top 50, which I'm, I'm really happy for a couple of guys from the Midwest that don't have access to press cars. Note to the manufacturers that do listen. A bill to install cameras has landed on Governor Newsom's desk at the moment when pedestrian deaths are spiking nationwide. These aren't cameras in restaurants. And there's actually a website you can go to to figure out where all the cameras are in California. But California, the land of the free. I can't necessarily have the home of the brave. Actually, it is the home of the Braves, isn't it? No, the Braves are in Atlanta. Sorry. Yeah, Atlanta. How'd you know the answer to that? That's sports.

SPEAKER_02 Because I live like four hours.

SPEAKER_01 Due to the spike in pedestrian deaths in California, there is now a push to add speed gamers in California. Pedestrian deaths have risen 77% to almost 70, just over 76 in 2000, 2000 or so.

SPEAKER_02 To clarify, that rise in pedestrian deaths is due to vehicular impacts.

SPEAKER_01 which is interesting because i was seeing a car back into a parking spot and i go you know that's really not a bad looking accord and i go wait a second that's a mercedes now i should easily be able to tell the difference but because a few years back 15 maybe 20 They changed all these laws on the front end structure of vehicles to make them safer for pedestrian impact. That's why we lost all the really wedge-shaped cars and stuff, and all the noses are flat and tall, because you have to make impact above the knees to allow the person to fall under your hood, I guess. Obviously, those aren't working, or are we just driving much faster? This bill has until October 14th for Governor Newsom. For those not aware, Governor Newsom is Governor of California, and it would allow a handful of cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, to install cameras on a trial basis. I normally am against traffic. What's your feeling on that, Derek?

SPEAKER_02 I am not a fan of them. I don't believe. And I think I'm trying to remember if it was anyway, recently there was a state that had been using a traffic and actually got sued over it. And they came to the, you know, justice system came to inclusion that they could not use the traffic cameras and on a computer system that would just automatically detect And it was all computer based they they decided that to enforce traffic laws it has to be done by an officer of the law so the only way they can use traffic cameras is to prove that those cameras. Are being monitored by an officer of the law and he is he or she is making the judgment of whether or not someone gets a ticket. I do not believe that traffic cameras to enforce traffic laws should be and it's just.

SPEAKER_01 Well, they've always been known as revenue. Red light cameras have always been controversial because anywhere there seem to be you, the percentage of rear end accidents goes up because certain people are afraid of running the red light because of the camera. entering on, you know, the light just clicked to yellow, so they slam on their brakes as opposed to following the law and proceeding through the inter… Remember, yellow is prepared to stop, not stopped, prepared to stop. Now, some jurisdictions are a lot more stringent on yellow infractions than others, but I think a good attorney will assist you with that if you have proof you're on yellow. Hence, I'm a big supporter of dash cams. But I did look up what she said are kind of related to what she's Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin prohibit state or speed cameras via state law. And Missouri Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2015, which found that red light can't red light and speed cameras were unconstitutional and speed cameras are no longer used anywhere in the state as of September 26. And I'm sure there's certain jurisdictions, and there's another article here that says ticket camera rules addressed in at least 19 states. I'm gonna say red light cameras I'm totally against, unless they are only activated… I guess I'm good with a red light camera that, say, turns on the moment the light turns red, and it's more of a video camera. and it pays attention to anybody who's going through against the red. But then that video does need to be reviewed by a police officer, et cetera. So almost every yes, every traffic light would almost have to have a police officer watching it. Eight hours of traffic footage for one light, eight hours of cop watching it. So, yeah, there's inefficiencies, but you figure if they nail two or three violators per hour, it should cover the wage camera monitor. And I think that's all we're, remember, we're not generating revenue, supposedly. We're protecting and making the public safer. So I think if it's a breakeven proposition, plus look at all the people, we have every stoplight. If we employed one person for every stoplight at a reasonable wage, reduced unemployment to almost zero, I believe, because all you got to do is sit there and watch TV.

SPEAKER_02 Uh, there there's the, see, this is where California is going to be really good at this because they're the land of Hollywood and cameras. So this is going to be really easy for California.

SPEAKER_01 Uh, here's a good, maybe it's, why do they use like three font? You got to make it pretty, a lot of fun. Way too. This would have been a show. It really gets heavy. I'm going to link this article in the show notes. It lists the 18 states where automated ticketing is banned, and it actually goes through all 18 states and breaks down each place where the infraction. I mean, it really it quotes the like New Jersey traffic, whatever, thirty nine colon forty four dash one oh three point one radar photo radar defined usage prohibited. And then it goes through all the little thing and photo radar may not be used. except in schools and in other areas that have posted speed limits of 30 miles per hour. Pretty detailed with some of these. And then other states, it just links to their vehicles. But I'll put that in the show notes because you don't want me reading to you for the entire episode. But what I found interesting about this California proposal, if signed, the legislation would allow California 205 communities in 21 states where speed cameras are in use. and have been widely credited with slowing drivers. I don't think this will necessarily slow drivers the way.

SPEAKER_02 Well, that was going to be my question, John, is how do they plan on these cameras slowing drivers down? Because I'm going to say this, and I mean, one of the things that physically slows people down in, you know, when they're on the roadways is when they physically see an officer in their car sitting there monitoring traffic and likely running their radar gun. And I mean, that's that is the visual impact that a lot of people need to be reminded that they need to slow down. I guess that's one of the things I've never really understood about cameras. Right. There's two sides to the argument here, which is number one. Well, nobody sees them, so they're going to keep speed and they'll get a ticket a week or two later in the mail or however fast the system can process that ticket. A week later, yep, I was speeding. I got to pay this ticket. And yes, I mean, then the flip side of that is, well, with cameras, we catch more people and get more in trouble, which, OK, understandable. But if you are aiming your sole purpose is aiming to slow down. To me, it's better to have that large visual of, oop, there's a police officer. I'd better slow down and think about my speed. That's just the way I look.

SPEAKER_01 Yes, and I'm surprised. This is why we probably work so well together. I disagree with you. I hate the police car on the side of the road, because you're flying, you're going down the interstate, 80, 85 miles an hour, 90, 100, wherever you're at, and you're going with traffic, and then all of a sudden, somebody ahead of you sees a police car. and slams on their brakes to drop from 85 to 70 immediately. And then everybody else slams. And effectively slows everybody down, slows down traffic, backs up traffic for literally miles and miles and miles. And then as soon as you're by the cop and they're out of your rearview mirror, because radar can't go any farther than your rearview mirror, they accelerate right back up to the speed limit. All it does is slow people down in a dangerous manner for half a mile. I don't think that's the purpose of it.

SPEAKER_02 OK, so I agree with that on on highways, on the interstate, you know, things like that. But thinking about on like two lane roads. in, say, in a town, in a city, around a school zone, places like that, I think it's a little more effective reminding people. But yes, on the interstate, it's danger.

SPEAKER_01 In school zones, and we'll just go down, so residential area, school zone, I think it still has the same effect. It might put the cop, just like you have a cop in every school now, you put a cop at every school zone during, I guess, when kids are getting in and out using the crosswalks, et cetera. When children are present and you're supposed to slow down to 15, 20, 25, depending on the speed limit. I believe people slow down a little bit in most instances. You're supposed to get off the cell phone. That doesn't happen unless a police car is sitting there. You might be correct, but it's I think it helps. But I don't know if that cop's really going to do anything for most infractions unless it's just a completely blatant thing and going through a 20 at 30 while on the phone. Yeah, then that cop might do. I don't see the problem as much in neighborhoods. But again, this California law is actually citing pedestrian deaths in a neighborhood. It discusses a child that was killed while walking to school because of someone speeding. It doesn't really give the circumstances. Were they in a crosswalk? Were they on the sidewalk? Did somebody blow through a stop sign? Was that an additional infraction that killed this unfortunate child? I look, I still look at it as it, you know, the bigger picture that, uh, speeding and I go through a community quite often when I'm driving out to the lake that has an old Dodge Charger painted black and white. Resembles the police cars for the municipality. Not exactly. And they have, I'm assuming he's Plywoods. He's been there years, but he could be a cardboard cutout. sat in this car, and they moved the car around. So it's trying to do what you say, but everybody's used to it. I left to go to the lake yesterday, about two in the afternoon. And it's a four-lane road that goes, you know, comes out of Birmingham at 50 miles an hour and goes up to 55, 65, drops down to 45, and goes back, you know, works its way back up to 65. And I got whatever group I got stuck coming out of Birmingham with, less than 70, you were gonna get killed. And I'm somebody who pretty much adheres to the speed limit anymore within five miles an hour. I find I plan, I don't rush, especially when I'm working because I get paid by the hour. May as well. And I get much better gas mileage. I don't speed. So overall, I net more money. It was uncomfortable to drive. It was just really flat dangerous because everybody's jockeying for position. Everybody's trying to go 80 or 90 miles an hour. And I finally turned off to get gas, which below $3 a gallon yesterday. And that's pretty good. I'm Birmingham Derricks. We won't get into gas prices and that. And when I reentered the road after getting gas and everything, that whole speed group was gone. And it was back to you could drive close to the speed limit, get in the right lane and drive 65 miles an hour or 68 miles an hour and not have any problem. And I find that reassuring. But that decoy cop car didn't help. Or, you know, slow people. And if you would have had another real cop car, all that would have created was all of the immediate braking. Where I think speed cameras are effective, like you said, you go, you're driving along, two weeks later, you get a ticket in the… I think the unknowing, if you're being watched, is more of the preventive. I mean, eventually you would learn where the speed cameras are, and my GPS pops up, speed camera ahead, or traffic camera that are actively using speed camera. But traffic camera ahead, eventually those would end up, you know, getting Apple Maps and things. But just the fact you don't know if a new one's been installed in that, I think would inherently slow people down a little bit. Where I get the problem is, is when you're driving the back highways and stuff, which I much preferred in the interstate, you get the speed traps where, you know, the speed limit drops from 65 to 35 in a matter of 12 feet, and they expect you to be at the speed limit When you hit that 35 mile an hour and the cop sitting, like I said, 16 feet behind it, ready to write you a ticket. I've always had the thought process. Well, if I'm supposed to be going 35 when I hit that sign, aren't I supposed to be going 65 when I hit the 65 sign? So can I start accelerating to 65 before I get there? No there's supposed to be a slowdown area acceleration and if you legalize speed cameras they're going to start just sticking those cameras on the back of the thirty five million hour sign and get you the moment you cross and then it becomes a revenue generator and. They don't even need to pay the cop. Now we've got cop to red light. There's good and bad. If speed cameras are used the way they should be designed, maybe instill a little bit of fear that, hey, we might be being watched. People would eventually learn that, hey, there's cameras here and you can put the cameras up and patrol more, quote, patrol more area. What's interesting about the speed camera program that is proposed in California, it's not going to be run by the police. It's going to be run by the city's transportation department. I think really puts a little bit of confusion. Now it's not the police doing the revenue generating. Now it's the transportation department doing the revenue. So I guess we're helping the transportation department's budgets.

SPEAKER_02 I'm going to jump in here because a couple of things. Number one, going back to what you were saying. You know, I guess I'm looking at this in, you know, California's idea of using traffic cameras is to get people to slow down, to reduce pedestrian fatalities, whatever. I guess the way I'm looking, there might be a sign up that says, oh, traffic camera, speed camera use. There might be, you know, your GPS or your ways. And when we get to that point, then it is likely that people will be slowing down. But number one, it's going to take a while to get there. So is it effective in the short term to get people to slow down? Number two, going back to your point of the. police car sitting on the side of the road and people slamming on the brakes. Once GPS and Waze and all that has this programmed in and, you know, just like, you know, my GPS right now, speed trap ahead. Uh, when, you know, people report that there's a cop. As soon as GPS and Waze and all those programs have this in where it's going to notify you that there is a traffic camera, a speed camera in use, the same thing's going to happen. People are going to speed. Until they get to that warning and then they're gonna immediately slow down which is gonna cause the same effect you talked about john people are just gonna immediately go up. I better slow down hit my brakes you bring it down to speed limit and go through the zone that's using speed and then once they believe they're clear they're gonna keep going so i think it comes down to as well not only. the way they're going to use the can, but kind of how our judicial system is going to allow it. Because most states, and you read off the list and we're going to post the other list in the show notes, typically in American law, you have to be made aware of what's going on. You can't be in trap, right? There's the entrapment. And so you have to know that the cameras are in use for them to be able to use them. So I don't see where maybe in the short term when they're getting installed and people aren't familiar yet with where things are, they might slow down. But once everybody figures out where these cameras are, they're notified where the cameras are, it's going to have the same effect as a police officer sitting on the side of the road. People are gonna speed they're gonna get to the point where they know the cameras are gonna hit their break slow down go through that zone and then speed back up that's kind of one of those are one of the things that i was thinking about and wanted to talk about but the other thing is. Yeah what's well a couple things because i did not realize that it was not law enforcement in california that was going to using these cameras and its transportation department that's gonna be an interesting one to see go to the supreme court because i doubt. The Supreme Court is going to allow anyone other than a trained professional law enforcement officer to write citations in this country. I don't think they're going to be like, oh, yeah, your transportation department wants to give people tickets. Yeah, feel free to do that. But also, I think it comes down to what's the penalty? What is the penalty these can't because that's that's what's going to make people.

SPEAKER_01 I'll defend the GPS warning of the traffic cameras. The thing is, when GPS warns you of the traffic cameras, it's going to warn everybody. So it's not that all of a sudden, surprise, slow down. But not everyone runs GPS, John. That's a feeling on that. I find, well, and also, who's to say the cameras can't become mobile? Why can't they be on the little, you know, we have the little speed limit, you know, signs, you are going this fast. Why can't the cameras just be put on those so that the municipalities can move around? I could see that becoming part of that. So we don't necessarily know where the cameras are all the time.

SPEAKER_02 Yeah, we do because it's the same way. It's the same way the GPS knows where the police are. People report it in, right? Waze, that's what you do on Waze. You get on there and you warn everybody that there's an off, there's a speed trap right here. As soon as somebody knows where they're going to just put it into the GPS or Waze and it's going to update and everybody using is going to see it.

SPEAKER_01 I guess that'll reverse or kind of go back. On the interstate, yes. But how often do you use Waze driving? You know where you're going.

SPEAKER_02 OK, fair, fair, fair, fair debate point. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 But what really, you mentioned entrapment, what entrapping can be done by the city transportation department? And I believe the city transportation department could be legislated into being able to issue fines because you could classify it kind of as code enforcement. I mean, if you hang gutters on your house and you don't get a building permit, the building inspectors or the permitting department can give you a ticket or a fine, levy a fine against you for failing to get a permit. And I think that's where that's going to fall into the police or city's transportation. To me, it's not necessarily enforcing a law, it's compliance with a city ordinance. You make your speed, the city, the speed limits become an ordinance. It is an ordinance that you have to, you know, 35 miles an hour in this area. Now the city transportation department, and it's not a fine, they call it a penalty. It gets back into, I want to say in the debate for Obamacare, is it a tax or isn't it? You know, that all gets, we're getting Into the weeds politically, but I think they can write the laws around. Yes. Somebody's going to run this up to a supreme court We're going to find out what happens.

SPEAKER_02 I will say that that's interesting john I had not thought of it in that manner where you turn it into a city ordinance Like, you know, you're you're building departments and stuff like that And and that's that's actually a very interesting take on it that that and it would you know It would go up to the supreme court, but it's it's an interesting

SPEAKER_01 and they're not making it criminal. This is the really interesting thing, and this is what got me to dive down and read a little bit more into it. If you are caught violating this speed ordinate, you get no points on your license, and that's what people are afraid of. Paying a speeding ticket doesn't matter to most people. Paying the increased insurance rates for the next six years is what upsets people. I started out the show with was up, was up, was up. And I was alluding to another podcaster who actually is sponsored by one of these tickets. And they talk about that it's a revenue generator. It makes money for the city. It makes money for the insurance companies. It puts you down the spiral that all you do is hemorrhage money for five years after a speeding and a speeding fine. But they're doing a penalty where they're not attributing it to your driving. So it doesn't affect your insurance. All it does is Put a financial deterrent for you to expect you know excessively speed or violate this ordinance and the money is going to a different department please don't be interesting to see how the police departments actually react to that if they start losing money from. But California has also been a key. Since COVID, they don't patrol. They don't have as many speed traps out there, et cetera. Plus, it's also extremely dangerous for officers anymore with the risk of a high-speed chase, with the risk of a traffic stop and guns getting pulled and things like that. There's a lot of factors that go into traffic stops. That's why people don't get pulled over for headlights out and stuff anymore. Is it worth getting shot over pulling somebody over because they're headlight? Let me just go through what these proposed fines are, and then you decide how much you want to be upset about these. This is kind of, this is borderline laughable. Under AB 645, your penalties are 11 to 15 miles per hour, which means if the speed limit's 35, you can go 45 and not worry about the ticketing. It allows for your speedometer errors, all that, you know, everybody, but it's 50 bucks. Get a ticket for going 47 and a 35, $50, mail your check off. 16 to 25 miles per hour, a hundred bucks. I live in Alabama, and there's a lot of other states similar, that if I go more than 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, it's a felony. It's reckless driving here in California. It's a hundred dollar penalty for going 25 miles an hour over this. That, like I say, is kind of laughable. And I wonder if there's any correlation. Why is it reckless driving in Alabama? And it's a hundred bucks with no points on my license in California, a more populous, busy state. 26 miles an hour or more over the speed limit is $200. And actually, this is a lie. It's 26 miles an hour. Now, actually, it's hard to say, but 26 miles an hour or more over the speed limit is a 200. See, that's at 26 miles an hour, 30 miles an hour in Alabama, that's Go directly to jail do not pass go do not collect $200 and here it's only a 200 and the really laughable one considering the amount of money in California I know the Writers Guild strike was just settled, and I don't know what they agreed to financially, but minimum wage for a television writer, I was told by a former television writer, used to write for Third Rock from the Sun and that, $3,500 a week. Seems like a lot of money most places except San Francisco. But either way, driving at a speed of 100 miles an hour or more. $500 fine, you know, I said to Derek before the show and that I know people who would just send the check estate a check, you know, for five grand a month and just figure, Oh, so what, you know, that's, that's not even the payment on a Lambert usually finding. So I don't even see that for the guys that want to be super speeders. That's not even a laughable thing. You know, it's like what I want to say an easy pass. I see, but I go by, it's just a $500 every time I go by a speed camera, a hundred and Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 Yeah. But see, that's that. And that's, again, going back to whether or not this is going to be able to be implemented when somebody decides to take it to court and take it up through the judicial system. The reason that all they can do is have these laughable fines is because they're doing it through a city transportation department. You can't make, the way this is being done, you can't make over 20 mile an hour criminal speeding a felony offense because law enforcement's not doing this. It's a city transportation department. Now, could the fines be higher? Yes, but you're still never going to be able to have the criminal speeding part behind it.

SPEAKER_01 I'm kinda good without the criminal part. I just think the fines need less laughable. But there's also something about the fines where they're at. If I'm a guy who, say, has my Lamborghini Ferrari Hellcat, and I got $100,000 into my car, I'm a busy, busy guy, and it's $500 for that 112-mile-an-hour infraction. Is it worth me calling my lawyer who's going to charge me in California 500 bucks an hour to get me out of that ticket and run it up to the Supreme Court? Or is it just worth me paying? I think part of the reason of these fines is to maybe help tier the number of people that take it to court.

SPEAKER_02 But there's going to be the lawyers that just go after this without a client, so they make a name. That's what happens in the US. There's going to be a group of lawyers that is like, this is unconstitutional, and we're going to stand up for your rights, California. And they'll just go at it, and they get to make their law firm. So I think the trick isn't, I think it needs to be tiered. because they're trying to reduce traffic, pedestrian deaths, right? So this, what it needs, how it actually need to be applied, because it's, it's more likely that a pedestrian death is going to happen in a residential, right? So residential areas have slower speed limits, typically 25 to 35 mile an hour. Correct? Yes. Uh, so really I think the way it should be is. So in a 25, you're less likely to go 20 to 30 miles an hour over the speed limit. Are there people that do? Yes, there are. But it's more likely that you're going to be that first range, 11 to 25 or whatever it was. That's going to be where most people are creating the infraction. So in all honesty, that should have the heaviest penalty because it's going to be in the slower zones that pedestrian deaths are occurring. Or it should be or it should be tiered to where if you are in a 25, you're going this fast. You know, it could also be broken down by the speed. But just a blanket policy is it's not going to be effective, especially with the laughable fines. Like you follow me?

SPEAKER_01 Oh, I follow completely what you say.

SPEAKER_02 Don't follow me because I'm speeding.

SPEAKER_01 They're also saying that the violations, since they are not making and not attributing points, they are to the registered driver or registered owner, not necessarily the person.

SPEAKER_02 Sweet. I'm moving to California and registering somebody.

SPEAKER_01 They also say that the bill goes on to, instead of paying the fine, they will, communities have the ability to request community service to satisfy them. I guess if you've got a $50 fine, you give them three hours. Well, it's California minimum wage, give them 16.

SPEAKER_02 So yeah, there's an interesting question. Well, also, you know, what are they going to do if you don't pay your fine, just keep sending bills and eventually the city has to take you to court.

SPEAKER_01 Well, I think just like again, if we look at it as a city ordinance, if you have these penalties and say you don't respond to a violation of not getting a permit or paying your property taxes, say even your HOA dues, at some point the city would be able to repossess your vehicle. No yeah you know they'd be able to hey this this amount of money is owed to the city i mean they kind of do it with parking tickets which is yes again a parking ticket not a say penalty not a parking penalty but yeah i would see that infractions for not paying these come to repossessing your vehicle, having your registration suspended, having other assets confiscated. I think municipalities do have a repercussion. potentially even more so than the police give you a ticket, your driver's license gets suspended. Now you physically have to be caught. Your license plate gets suspended. Any of these license plate readers, which are everywhere, is going to be able to pick up that, you know, that infraction. And now your civil penalty has now become a moving violation, something that is more substantial. It's just an interesting, I think, overall conversation and thought process. The penalties are different than what's been done in the past. The enforcement's different than what's been done in the past. They have a lot of things that cite why this is a good thing. 30% drops in speeding violations. This system works. In Europe, most of the it seems most of the time, and I think I read a 60 or 70 percent of residents of the EU are in favor of their speed. Yes, the United States isn't like the EU. There was a little scuffle in the late 1700s over some of our disagreements. And just like I said, it's it's an interesting thing. It's an interesting angle. It's California doing it. And if California does it and gets away with it and gets through their Supreme Court and this works, what happens in California always trickles. you know, eastward, it's the only time that it seems in the world things don't go east to west unless if it happens in California, it goes west to east. But as the world powers move, they always go to the west as I guess weather formations come.

SPEAKER_02 Yeah, the jet stream goes west. That's the problem.

SPEAKER_01 So things from California just blow back. But exactly. but in the world rotates east to west. And so I guess maybe it's not so on, but I'm talking or geography. I don't know where to go from that other than say, we're letting you know, it's on the books. I'd love to hear some responses, the thoughts, a little bit of debate. I'll go ahead and maybe put a couple of social media posts up about this and see what people think.

SPEAKER_02 What I think is we just need to slow down and think about what we're doing.

SPEAKER_01 No, we had a second part of this, but I don't think we have time to get to it. We'll save it for interest. We'll save it for the next conversation. Derek, you have any closing thoughts, statements?

SPEAKER_02 Didn't I just make them? I told people to slow down. Think about what you're doing while you're driving. Isn't that?

SPEAKER_01 Oh, I was just making sure those were your closing statement.

SPEAKER_02 Oh, okay. Yeah, we didn't really go over. We just jumped right into stuff today. We didn't go over how each other are doing and what we've been up to lately. That's kind of disappointing. I'm all excited over here about some stuff. And you're just like, let's talk about traffic cameras.

SPEAKER_01 What you got going on, Derek?

SPEAKER_02 Nothing, no. No, I'm finally, John, finally getting the driveway to my barn put in. I'm going to actually be able to use my barn more effectively for my projects, for some side work projects. It's awesome. I am stoked.

SPEAKER_01 Is it like concrete driveway, black asphalt, gravel, or?

SPEAKER_02 Yeah yeah gravel gravel so i've got coming into my house i've got from the road about half my driveway up is is gravel i'll call it the historic gravel portion of the drive and then at some point they did pour some concrete up by the garage that is existing for you know to park cars on and just have concrete pad to park cars on. So I'm making everything from the concrete pad around the garage, back to the barn, gravel that matches the front half of it. So yeah, trying to keep a more historical. I'm not a big fan of giant, giant areas of concrete. So I like the old school gravel. I just kind of curious. It matches, it matches better with the cars, you know.

SPEAKER_01 Well, everything's about the same for me.

SPEAKER_02 Sounds exciting.

SPEAKER_01 I feel like I should be buying a new car, but I keep looking and I just don't like it. I even went and looked at the Bronco Heritage, which everybody seems to be talking about, which is still way too expensive. And I was kind of thinking it would be like a heritage paint scheme and stuff. A lot of electric car news. I'm trying to avoid to get electric. We'll have one big electric. But with that, I think I'm going to give you a nice cell you can closing. Thank you for the show today, Derek. And for all you listen, get off your ass, go burn some gas. I'm outta here.

SPEAKER_00 This show was a part of the No Driving Gloves Network produced and edited by John Viviani of Magic City Podcast with voice work by Gary Conger. So until the next exit.