Speed Cameras. Coming soon to your town?

[Bonoa]

My IQ is 72, thank you very much.

My comment was an analogy to point out how something that might work well here (or there) might not work well in the reverse.

I'm no fan of GWB btw.

If we can elect the bastard here in NL I'll let him send a postcard to you. Congrats on just being able to tie your shoelaces and post here on the blue crack

 

[Vincent Vega]

I think they're a combination of frightened and stupid. They don't understand how the cameras work, so they have no idea what they need to do to avoid a ticket. Thus, they err on the side of coming almost to a complete stop.

Sometimes it's like they think there's a little man in the camera, or that there's an officer watching them real-time while looking at their record. Like maybe if they drive even slower than the already artificially reduced limit, then they'll get some sort of extra credit for good behavior.

Such people actually get the license to sit behind the wheel of a potentially deadly machine? Sorry, but in the case I would lobby for them getting their licenses revoked.

As far as the cutting through the neighborhoods, I think that's more about principal than it is about saving time. Also, if the camera creates a traffic back-up (which it does pretty much every rush hour) then the detour probably saves time.

Ok, in cases of back-ups I can understand them. Though it also doesn't shine a bright light on the number of drivers who really go crazy over some cameras on the roadside.

For the record, the roads they've chosen to post cameras on are among the safest in the county. The locations weren't chosen for their accident history, they were chosen by topography. Most of them have been posted at locations where there is a significant drop in the speed limit, and they've been places just a few yards past the sign. Other "traffic calming" measures have been proven in our county to be far more effective than the cameras (thinks like round-abouts, etc) but those don't make any money, so there's no financial incentive to use them.

Yes, those are the cases where it really gets embarrassing for the authorities. We have the same issue here at some places.

But it's bad enough to make me vote a straight republican ticket in our next state election.

You think that will be any different? I guess it will only shift the favor towards another set of lobbyists. And those cameras are important enough to you to favor the other party?

 

[VintagePunk]

I found this today:

Auto and Road User Journal

Photo Radar Slows Speeders: Ontario Publishes Results of Four-Month Preliminary Study

In a January 1995 report entitled Photo Radar Safety Evaluation--Preliminary 4- Month Speed Results (SRO-95-101), the Safety and Regulation Division of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) shared conclusions suggested by the first four months of data from a planned two-year study of the effects of photo radar on highway safety.

STUDY RATIONALE

Ontario statistics for 1993 showed that 228,834 highway crashes resulted in 1,135 deaths and 91,174 injuries. The MTO estimates that crash-related emergency services, health care, property damages, lost earnings, and related human consequences represent an economic loss to society of about $9 billion each year. This report proposed that one key to reducing crashes and their costs is changing the perception that highway injuries and fatalities are the result of uncontrollable accidents. According to the report, accidents are collisions, and motorists can positively or negatively affect the number and severity of these collisions by changing their driving behavior.

The government of Ontario has developed the Integrated Safety Project to address safety issues related to the transportation and justice systems. Through education, media coverage, and increased enforcement, the MTO has promoted initiatives to encourage seatbelt use, reduce drinking and driving, and increase awareness of dangerous aggressive driving behavior.

A pilot project to test the effect of photo radar on speed reduction and collision severity is a recent initiative in the Integrated Safety Project. Photo radar units take pictures of speeding vehicles and record their license plate numbers. As a result of the photographs, vehicle owners receive tickets in the mail. Roadside signs and extensive media coverage make motorists aware of the use of photo radar surveillance.

While the evaluation of the initiative will continue for at least two years, this report published only data gathered during the month before the use of photo radar began and for the first four months of operation. The report addressed data on speed reduction but did not present findings on collisions. Due to the size of the sample and the depth of analysis necessary, the MTO will not publish results of crash data until at least a year into the study. The MTO, however, believes they will reduce crash severity by reducing highway speeds. The report mentioned several previous studies that support this belief.

RESULTS OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

Studies in British Columbia, Australia, and Texas confirmed a relationship between the use of photo radar and speed reduction. A 1988 Victoria, B.C. study concluded that photo radar cameras reduced speeds at study sites. Two years of data from Victoria, Australia showed that speed reduction at camera sites was greater when media publicity and signs announced the presence of photo radar. In Vancouver, B.C. research from a short-term 1994 study indicated that fewer vehicles traveled over the speed limit when photo radar was in place. Finally, an Arlington, Texas report concluded that the presence of photo radar cameras reduced speeding--the greater the concentration of cameras, the greater the reduction in speeders.

Sweden, Germany, and Australia reported decreases in injury-producing collisions with the introduction of photo radar. During a 1990-to-1992 Swedish research project, data showed fewer injury-producing crashes both on test roadway sections monitored by cameras and on control sections of roadways not monitored by cameras. The reductions were greater, however, where there were cameras. German statistics compared collisions on the Autobahn in 1977, without photo radar, and in 1978, after the installation of photo radar. Researchers reported increased compliance with speed limits. Moreover, there were only 9 crashes, 7 injuries, and no deaths in 1978 compared with 300 crashes, 80 injuries, and 7 deaths the year before. Similarly, Australian statistics from 1992 and 1993 showed photo radar reduced injury-producing collisions on some roadways by as much as 20 percent.

United States research substantiated the relationship between reduced speed and injury-producing collisions. In 1974, the U.S. instituted national 55-mile-per-hour speed limits. The Transportation Research Board estimated that during 1983 the reduced speed limit saved between 2,000 and 4,000 lives. Interstate highways where states increased the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour experienced a 27.1 percent increase in fatal crashes in 1987, while sections of the interstate where the speed limit remained at 55 miles per hour showed increases of only 0.6 percent. During the same time, the number of motorists driving more than 65 miles per hour increased by 48.2 percent on interstates where the speed limit was 65 miles per hour; interstates where the speed limit was still 55 miles per hour showed an increase of only 9.1 percent. Michigan statistics compared fatalities, serious injuries, and moderate injuries on sections of interstate before and after the change from a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit to 65 miles per hour. Although no significant increase in the number of vehicles involved in crashes resulted, significant increases occurred in the number of fatalities and injuries--showing a relationship between higher speed and severity of crashes.

The MTO pointed out that increased speed increases stopping distance and results in more collisions, injuries, and fatalities. Figure 1 from the report shows the relationship between stopping distance and speed for a vehicle with good brakes on a straight, dry, level road.

In addition, crashes that occur at higher speeds involve greater transfer of energy upon impact and are more likely to result in severe injury or fatality. According to the report, a 1984 Transportation Research Board paper stated that an increase in impact speed from 64 km/h [40 mph] to 80 km/h [50 mph] roughly doubles the probability of fatal injury.

STUDY DESIGN

In an eleven-month pilot study, the Province of Ontario is using four portable photo radar units on selected sections of roadway. The MTO created three site pairings to compare data for test sections using photo radar equipment and control sections not using the equipment. Describing the roadway sections selected, the reported said:

The first set of site pairings [is] on a 6 lane, 100 km/h [62 mph] divided freeway with urban commuter traffic. The second pairing is a 4 lane, 100 km/h [62 mph] divided highway with recreational traffic. The third site is a 2 lane, 80 km/h [50 mph] undivided highway with urban commuter traffic.

Loops embedded in the roadways collected data 24 hours a day and seven days a week on vehicle speeds and sizes. Photo radar vehicles containing radar units, cameras, and Ontario Provincial Police patrolled the test roadways. Baseline data collection took place the end of July 1994. From August 1 through August 14, 1994, signs reading SPEED ENFORCED BY PHOTO RADAR confronted motorists on the test sections; however, enforcement did not begin until August 15.

STUDY RESULTS

With 18 million vehicles monitored on test roadways and 13 million on control roadways, results showed speed reductions on all roadways. However, the average speed reduction was greater at all test sites when compared with control sites. Table One from the report compared speeds at the various sites during the time periods of the study.

Data led researchers to several conclusions:

* While the proportion of speeding vehicles decreased at all sites during the test period, decreases were greater at test sites.

* The greatest decreases in the proportion of speeding vehicles at all sites were for vehicles traveling at the highest rates of speed. Again, the largest decreases were at test sites.

* Substantial speed reductions at all sites suggested that media coverage of the use of photo radar at some sites affected the behavior of all drivers. In addition, other ongoing safety initiatives were probably causing speed reductions.

* The greatest speed reductions occurred on the six-lane test section. While daily radio announcements advertised the use of photo radar at the six-lane site, the use of radar at other sites attracted less media attention. The report theorized, These preliminary data seem to support the hypothesis that specific speed enforcement in conjunction with public media campaigns can lower average speeds and the proportion of speeders on provincial highways.

* At least for a short time, the mere presence of signing announcing photo radar reduced speeding--even when cameras were not present.

* When the MTO increased enforcement presence and fully deployed the photo radar units (on December 1, 1994), decreases in speeding on the test roadways became even more significant. The report suggested that drivers were more likely to reduce their speed as they talked to more people who had seen the photo radar units or as they saw units themselves.

Based on preliminary data and emphasizing that more work lies ahead, the report expressed a reasonable expectation that the above mentioned changes in driver behaviours will eventually lead to a reduction in fatalities, severity of injuries and perhaps the number of collisions. . . . Baseline data showed 62 percent of motorists drove over the speed limit before photo radar enforcement. During the fourth month of enforcement, this figure had dropped to 47 percent at some sites. Over half the total drivers, however, continued to exceed the speed limit--even at the end of the preliminary study period.

 

[VintagePunk]

Between 120 and 150 (~75 to 90mph) is a nice travelling speed. But you need to be used to it. I think in Canada it's not forbidden to overtake on the inside, right?

Yes, passing on the inside lanes is fine on a multi-lane, divided highway. On a two lane highway, it's illegal to pass with a solid line, you have to wait till there is a dashed line and it's safe to do so.

When I was looking up photo radar earlier, I found something interesting, and maybe you can confirm this. The writer said that in Germany, drivers are much better about using inside lanes only to pass, and that's what enables being able to drive at high speeds relatively safely. If that's the case, then things are much different here. On the 400 series highways, people show much less regard for proper lane usage, whipping in and out of lanes at random, driving on inner lanes rather than just using them to pass, etc. That's probably a bigger issue than speeding, and it would make things much safer if people would use common sense and courtesy.

 

[financeguy]

Oh noez, speed kameraz! Big Brother! That'll nevar work!

This thread is hilarious. Despite occasional howls of "revenue raising!" from the furious few who don't want to be punished for breaking the law (wow, how dare the police issue you with a fine for driving too fast), speed cameras work just fine in Australia and New Zealand.

They 'work fine' at revenue raising for the government.

Incidentally, why do you think the police have better expertise than the private citizen on adjudjing what driving too fast means?

 

[financeguy]

Is anyone going to take the true libertarian position of advocating repeal of all speed limits, drink and drug driving laws, and seatbelt laws? I'm not entirely convinced I see any merit in such laws.

For example, there is ample research that people wearing 'safety' belts drive faster than those not wearing them. Someone who has had one or two drinks taken is likely to drive more carefully than someone who has drunk no alcohol. Of course, the nutter who drives after twelve pints will drive completely recklessly, but such a person probably drives recklessly anyway - and let's not kid ourselves that tough drink driving laws will stop them.

 

[anitram]

I did a lot of work on drunk driving laws when I was a law student.

Enough to know that those laws save lives. The data is indisputable and there are decades of research if you'd like to look it up.

Drug driving laws, on the other hand, are largely based on speculation at this point.

 

[financeguy]

I did a lot of work on drunk driving laws when I was a law student.

Enough to know that those laws save lives. The data is indisputable and there are decades of research if you'd like to look it up.

Drug driving laws, on the other hand, are largely based on speculation at this point.

I wouldn't dispute that as such, but is saving lives to be the only test here? Because we put up with an awful lot of dangerous activity that isn't regulated in this manner, so it's interesting that there's a big moral hysteria about this issue.

How many human citizens do the fumes from an articulated truck kill in its lifetime? Why is this tolerated?

For the record, I neither drink drive, nor speed, nor even own a motor vehicle.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, passing on the inside lanes is fine on a multi-lane, divided highway. On a two lane highway, it's illegal to pass with a solid line, you have to wait till there is a dashed line and it's safe to do so.

When I was looking up photo radar earlier, I found something interesting, and maybe you can confirm this. The writer said that in Germany, drivers are much better about using inside lanes only to pass, and that's what enables being able to drive at high speeds relatively safely. If that's the case, then things are much different here. On the 400 series highways, people show much less regard for proper lane usage, whipping in and out of lanes at random, driving on inner lanes rather than just using them to pass, etc. That's probably a bigger issue than speeding, and it would make things much safer if people would use common sense and courtesy.

I fucking hate people who block the passing lane.

I totally agree with Vincent about 75-90 MPH being a good highway speed. But there's no speed limit higher than 65 in my entire state, and that's only on the Turnpike. The highest any other road can be is 55. Both are absurdly low numbers.

There's a highway with 55 as its constant speed limit. The people in the non-passing do 60-65 (with the occasional 55 MPH person who really makes merging difficult), the people in the passing are 75-80. I for one am usually in the passing lane.

 

[cobl04]

errr dude havent you only had your P's like 6 months ????

yeah. i'm not a hoon, just i believe unlucky.

I totally agree with Vincent about 75-90 MPH being a good highway speed.

That works out to be 120-145ks... now I don't know what the highways are like over there, but that's fucking mental.

 

[phillyfan26]

yeah. i'm not a hoon, just i believe unlucky.



That works out to be 120-145ks... now I don't know what the highways are like over there, but that's fucking mental.

Typically 55-65 around here, which is too slow for a divided, multi-lane highway, in my opinion. A majority are going 10 MPH over the limit, no matter where it is.

I only really follow speed limits in neighborhoods and school zones, where it's most important. When I'm on a highway, the speed limits are guaranteed to be too low.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, I just know these roads.

 

[anitram]

That works out to be 120-145ks... now I don't know what the highways are like over there, but that's fucking mental.

I think 130-135 is a fine cruising speed.

I'm more concerned about the people sitting there doing 100 when everyone else is zooming past them.

 

[cydewaze]

You think that will be any different? I guess it will only shift the favor towards another set of lobbyists.

The lobbyists have been hammering both parties since the cameras were proposed. Since then, all the local dems voted FOR the cameras, despite strong public opposition. All the reps voted AGAINST, despite the lobbying efforts.

And those cameras are important enough to you to favor the other party?

When I think my current party is acting against my best interest, sure I'll vote for someone else.

I guess I'm an old fashioned liberal. I believe the government serves the people, and not the other way around. Our local dem officials always assume that they have carte blanche because the county leans so heavily in their favor. But for a system to work, there need to be checks and balances, and when you have a one-party system that has no fear of repercussion from the voters, you get bad, self-serving decisions.

I found this today:

Auto and Road User Journal

Photo Radar Slows Speeders: Ontario Publishes Results of Four-Month Preliminary Study

Yeah, Maryland released a similar report, but it collapsed instantly under scrutiny because the numbers were "cooked".

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, passing on the inside lanes is fine on a multi-lane, divided highway. On a two lane highway, it's illegal to pass with a solid line, you have to wait till there is a dashed line and it's safe to do so.

When I was looking up photo radar earlier, I found something interesting, and maybe you can confirm this. The writer said that in Germany, drivers are much better about using inside lanes only to pass, and that's what enables being able to drive at high speeds relatively safely. If that's the case, then things are much different here. On the 400 series highways, people show much less regard for proper lane usage, whipping in and out of lanes at random, driving on inner lanes rather than just using them to pass, etc. That's probably a bigger issue than speeding, and it would make things much safer if people would use common sense and courtesy.

It's regulated here, that's right. I know from Australia and the US that you can overtake on whichever lane you want, but for apparent reasons it's strictly prohibited to use the right lanes for overtaking. I guess I mixed it up in my previous post. So basically, the right lane is for slower driving and the left lane for overtaking. If there is more than two lanes you should keep the left lane for those passing, the right lane for trucks etc. and the middle lane(s) for any speed in between.
Some speeders overtake on the right but if they get caught they pay a high fine. And since we have quite a few civil police with video and all I wouldn't risk it. It's also what many tourists don't get, or they ignore the speed limits because they think they are on the autobahn and thus there is no limit. Well, generally yes, but to every rule there is exceptions.

When you are driving 130 and are being approached by someone going 200+ it's essential that there is some regulation on where to overtake and where not. Even if I go 180 it's amazing how fast a car going 250 is right behind you that me haven't seen just seconds before. Then imagine they could be both left and right. It wouldn't work.

 

[Vincent Vega]

That works out to be 120-145ks... now I don't know what the highways are like over there, but that's fucking mental.

It's in no way mental if you are used to it.
The number of accidents on the autobahn due to speed are extremely low, lower than 3%.

Typically 55-65 around here, which is too slow for a divided, multi-lane highway, in my opinion. A majority are going 10 MPH over the limit, no matter where it is.

I only really follow speed limits in neighborhoods and school zones, where it's most important. When I'm on a highway, the speed limits are guaranteed to be too low.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, I just know these roads.

That's ridiculously slow, indeed. On the I-90 between Missoula and Seattle it was 75, so I averaged around 85.

When I think my current party is acting against my best interest, sure I'll vote for someone else.

Everyone sets his priorities different. For me it would just not be important enough an issue to base my vote on. Well, I could never imagine voting Republican anyways, but as a German my political spectrum is far more left than the Republicans could ever be.
On the other hand, I would fully agree that it's generally not healthy to have the same party leading for decades.

 

[coolian2]

That works out to be 120-145ks... now I don't know what the highways are like over there, but that's fucking mental.

bearing in mind their roads are far straighter and wider it's perfectly comfortable. i'd have no trouble driving on it, whereas the thought of doing 100 on some of the motorways in new zealand is fucking terrifying.

 

[mysterious_jen]

yeah. i'm not a hoon, just i believe unlucky.

unlucky is hitting a child at nearly 60 in a 50 zone and either killing them or giving them an Aquired Brain Injury.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

another big reason motorists tend to follow such traffic rules better in germany than, say, the u.s. is simply because here such things (passing on the right instead of the left, reserving the left lane only for passing, etc.) just aren't really taught or enforced. it's been ten years now since i took my driving test, but at no point was any of that really brought up. here it's kinda like if you have an opening in another lane take it, even if you're getting in the right lane to try to pass someone.

it aggravates me when i'm on the interstate and i'm just trying to do the speed limit but can't. i'll be in the left lane going 75 in a 70 zone trying to pass a line of cars (also frequently checking the rear view mirror to make sure someone isn't on my bumper wanting to pass me) and someone will cut me off and proceed to continuously do 60. hey fucktard, if you're going to go ten under, the left lane isn't for you. not to mention if the people that were in front of you in the right lane were going 55, then maybe you were better off over there since that's about how fast you were going.

i will admit i do my fair share of speeding, but the only thing i expect of other drivers is going the speed limit. if you're going to pull in front of me despite there being no one in back of me, at least have the common decency to actually go as fast or faster than me. i understand needing some time to speed back up, but if after a mile you're not going any faster, then you're an idiot.

but this is all off topic. we don't have speed cameras here, though i don't think they'd be a bad idea. i can't imagine them ever putting any in this part of town though, mostly because it's so hard to speed in the first place. nine times out of ten when i'm on the interstate around here, i'm lucky if i do the speed limit, just due to traffic. the only place in town i could imagine it actually making some money are some residential streets. i can't tell you how many times i've seen tire marks all along someone's front yard along this one stretch, due to people obviously jumping the curb and going up on the lawn. it's 30 along this road, and even at 40 i've never had an issue of "whoa i nearly lost control there!" (though i usually stick to a max of 35 just due to it being a huge speed trap.) it makes me wonder 1. how fast some people must go along there 2. what breed of idiot you must be to think you don't need to slow down for a turn in the road.

 

[AliEnvy]

Photo Radar Slows Speeders: Ontario Publishes Results of Four-Month Preliminary Study

I remember this pretty well although I was living in Montreal at the time. The 401 trek to Toronto was regular for me in the early 90s whether it was visiting friends/family on long weekends or one of the summer jobs I had in TO.

In my experience, average speed on many stretches was at least 130km/hr. If you wanted to do 120 or less you needed to be in the far right lane to feel safe - if being sandwiched between 18-wheelers makes you feel safe that is.

I recall photo radar making a HUGE difference on my trips and I would say the effect lasted quite a while after the program was shut down. Naturally average speeds crept back up. When I moved to Toronto in the late 90s the nightly news was full of these crazy awful crashes where it seemed fairly routine for accident victims to be identified by dental records by necessity.

The newer penalties for going 150+ seem to me to have made a significant impact as well but haven't seen stats.

 

[cydewaze]

Everyone sets his priorities different. For me it would just not be important enough an issue to base my vote on. Well, I could never imagine voting Republican anyways, but as a German my political spectrum is far more left than the Republicans could ever be.
On the other hand, I would fully agree that it's generally not healthy to have the same party leading for decades.

I normally would not ever vote republican either, especially not in a national election, but for local elections, I could see making an exception.

This area is so overwhelmingly liberal that even the republicans are pretty centrist. They know they'd never get elected otherwise. So basically, the only differences you get between the parties are these "small" issues, with the republicans (believe it or not) coming down on the side of civil liberties and the dems pushing a Bush-like platform of restricting those liberties. Quite a role reversal, eh?

Even the centrist republicans have a hard time around here, but we got to the point some time ago where the dems decided that they could basically do anything and everything they wanted because "people around here don't vote for republicans" and that's led to abuses and even corruption.

When elected officials totally ignore the will of the people for their own personal best interest, a change needs to be made. I understand this seems like a small issue, but I have a serious problem with government surveillance of the people, and that doesn't change just because the ones doing it have a "D" after their name.

Things escalate. Today we have a few cameras. In a few years we'll have more of them, maybe on every road. Maybe we'll have them inside our cars (maybe you were looking at the road, or maybe you were applying makeup when you had that accident. Let's check your "black box" and see). If you don't put your foot down early, things get out of hand in short order.

I don't want to live in a world where my every movement is tracked by some sort of surveillance equipment, and you shouldn't either. You can almost sell anything to anyone if you tell them it's for their own good. Well, my own good is just fine the way it is, thank you.

 

[phillyfan26]

I do a lot of driving in non-rush hour hours, so I don't want to have to do the idiotically low speed limit on a road where I don't have to. I mean, fuck, I want to spend as little time in transit as humanly possible while maintaining safety, and that's way faster than anything they post. The fact that no road can be higher than 55 MPH aside from the Turnpike is the stupidest traffic law. And the fact that the Turnpike is only 65 is also absurd. Unless there's construction, I'm doing 80 on the Turnpike, guaranteed.

 

[VintagePunk]

I remember this pretty well although I was living in Montreal at the time. The 401 trek to Toronto was regular for me in the early 90s whether it was visiting friends/family on long weekends or one of the summer jobs I had in TO.

In my experience, average speed on many stretches was at least 130km/hr. If you wanted to do 120 or less you needed to be in the far right lane to feel safe - if being sandwiched between 18-wheelers makes you feel safe that is.

I recall photo radar making a HUGE difference on my trips and I would say the effect lasted quite a while after the program was shut down. Naturally average speeds crept back up. When I moved to Toronto in the late 90s the nightly news was full of these crazy awful crashes where it seemed fairly routine for accident victims to be identified by dental records by necessity.

The newer penalties for going 150+ seem to me to have made a significant impact as well but haven't seen stats.

That's pretty much my memory of it, too.

These days, going to Toronto, I drive to Burlington and take the GO. MUCH easier, and cost effective too when you add in gas and parking.

 

[cydewaze]

I do a lot of driving in non-rush hour hours, so I don't want to have to do the idiotically low speed limit on a road where I don't have to. I mean, fuck, I want to spend as little time in transit as humanly possible while maintaining safety, and that's way faster than anything they post. The fact that no road can be higher than 55 MPH aside from the Turnpike is the stupidest traffic law. And the fact that the Turnpike is only 65 is also absurd. Unless there's construction, I'm doing 80 on the Turnpike, guaranteed.

Yanno, I don't even mind driving slow (maybe because I'm old). But I do mind the bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go traffic that the cameras create. Am I really expected to believe that a long string of cars filled with impatient, irate drivers and tailgating one another is safer than smooth-flowing traffic? I mean come on. That's got to be common sense.

Even thought I technically live in the DC suburbs, I actually live in a very rural area (it's an agricultural reserve), and there's not really that much traffic as compared with the rest of the area. Some of the roads near my home have not had a recorded accident in the past 20 years. In fact some of them have never had a recorded accident for as long as they've been keeping records. Yet the cameras are here. Why?

Could it be maybe that at the end of the road that goes through town there's a ferry to VA (where speed cameras are illegal) and they think they can catch a bunch of unsuspecting VA drivers?

A while back, a couple got caught doing 100mph in a 30mph zone. Even though they were obviously not going 100mph (the car would have had to do something like 0-100 in 50 yards uphill, and it was a Corolla) they paid the fine, because no matter how fast you're going, the fine is $40, zero points, and your insurance company is not notified.

They showed the ticket to a news outlet who publicized it, and the county reluctantly and sheepishly refunded their $40. If the camera can be off by 70mph, it can certainly be off by 5, 10, 15, or any amount of mph. How many people who aren't speeding just pay the fine because it's not worth going to court for $40.

Also, this area is filled with filthy rich people. How much of a deterrent is a $40 fine for someone who lives in a $5 mil home and drives an Aston? With no points and no insurance issues, rich people can drive as fast as they want. Just log on and pay your tickets online when you get home. Some deterrent.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I normally would not ever vote republican either, especially not in a national election, but for local elections, I could see making an exception.

This area is so overwhelmingly liberal that even the republicans are pretty centrist. They know they'd never get elected otherwise. So basically, the only differences you get between the parties are these "small" issues, with the republicans (believe it or not) coming down on the side of civil liberties and the dems pushing a Bush-like platform of restricting those liberties. Quite a role reversal, eh?

Even the centrist republicans have a hard time around here, but we got to the point some time ago where the dems decided that they could basically do anything and everything they wanted because "people around here don't vote for republicans" and that's led to abuses and even corruption.

When elected officials totally ignore the will of the people for their own personal best interest, a change needs to be made. I understand this seems like a small issue, but I have a serious problem with government surveillance of the people, and that doesn't change just because the ones doing it have a "D" after their name.

Things escalate. Today we have a few cameras. In a few years we'll have more of them, maybe on every road. Maybe we'll have them inside our cars (maybe you were looking at the road, or maybe you were applying makeup when you had that accident. Let's check your "black box" and see). If you don't put your foot down early, things get out of hand in short order.

I don't want to live in a world where my every movement is tracked by some sort of surveillance equipment, and you shouldn't either. You can almost sell anything to anyone if you tell them it's for their own good. Well, my own good is just fine the way it is, thank you.

I entirely agree with you. On a local level you sometimes find yourself voting for a party you would never vote for on any other level. It's also because the politicians on that level seem closer to reality. And some change every now and then can be very effective in keeping corruption and too big an influence of lobbyists low.

And with recent attempts at diminishing our freedoms and privacy I've become much more suspicious of measures that are for our safety in general. But speed cameras have never been of concern to me in such a way. But reason might also be that we have only very few immobile ones, they are usually found in places where you can agree with and there is not much lobbying behind.
About two years ago they wanted to introduce a new camera which would scan the license plates of every car that passed. Our highest court put an end to that shit. Then they wanted to introduce a law that would allow to measure the average speed like referred to earlier. It was blocked as well.

 

[bigjohn2441]

I do a lot of driving in non-rush hour hours, so I don't want to have to do the idiotically low speed limit on a road where I don't have to. I mean, fuck, I want to spend as little time in transit as humanly possible while maintaining safety, and that's way faster than anything they post. The fact that no road can be higher than 55 MPH aside from the Turnpike is the stupidest traffic law. And the fact that the Turnpike is only 65 is also absurd. Unless there's construction, I'm doing 80 on the Turnpike, guaranteed.

 

[phillyfan26]

What part of PA are you from, out of curiosity?

 

[bigjohn2441]

Pittsburgh area

 

[indra]

Pittsburgh area

I was just there yesterday.

I'm so proud of myself -- I didn't get lost or nuttin'.


(I have a hideous sense of direction )

 

[cydewaze]

About two years ago they wanted to introduce a new camera which would scan the license plates of every car that passed. Our highest court put an end to that shit. Then they wanted to introduce a law that would allow to measure the average speed like referred to earlier. It was blocked as well.

So basically you could drive that section once to see how long it takes to do at the speed limit, then the next time you could drive 100mph then just pull over before the exit and wait a few minutes.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yeah, you could do that. Don't know what you would get from that, but anyways.
And believe me, it's not much fun to be standing on the emergency lane of an autobahn.

Different, of course, on other roads. But normally it's crazy to do more than 120kph (75mph) on those, and 100kph (62.5kph) is legal. Doesn't mean that nobody does it, however.