That's the Ticket

I hope somebody edits this before it gets published further. There are a few glitches.

Moreover, it isn't an overly bright question.

Arizona tried it and now they are being systematically removed. I guess the people of Arizona have spoken their mind about it.

I expect South Carolina will do the same in due time.

"if a vehicle exceeds the 70 MPH speed limit............ by more than 10 MPH" !!!!!!

Do you think it's fair? .......sure, as long as it's accurate.....Zog say "play wit fire get burn"

Do you think it's effective? "Since it was set up, the number of vehicles traveling 81 MPH or more has been halved." .........sounds like it.......

Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do.......Now for the text-ers

Notice their are absolutely no claims made that it improved safety. That data is suspiciously missing. It may have, but you would think that would be the most important claim.

Oh wait, it is actually about the money! Who would have ever thought?

The post seems a bit outdated........by about a decade or more.

I'm thinking "the number of vehicles travelling 81 MPH or more has been halved" refers to areas where the cameras are positioned. Drivers tend to slow down around speed cameras, then revert back to their usual speed sometime later.

I don't know if it is effective in changing driver behaviour to a noticable extent, but it is effective in punishing people who are caught speeding. Regardless of motive, we are all aware that there may be consequences to being caught breaking any law, including speeding.

Speeding is cheating.

With all the computers and automation in our newer vehicles it would be easy to prevent speeding in the first place. For example: GM has the OnStar system where they can control the vehicle remotely (turn it off, open the doors, etc.). Why couldn't the speed limit signs send signals to the cars passing by that will limit how fast they can go no matter how hard you press on the gas. Emergency vehicles would have an override. People would not like this and buck the system at first, but after a while would get used to it. This would also save on emissions in a cumulative fashion. Especially on the highways. Your vehicle would go only as fast as the sending units would allow. In inclement conditions, the speed limits could be temporarily set lower to help decrease the chances of accidents. I know I might not like it at first, but it would be the right thing to do.

James Stork

Wow, are you suggesting the ultimate 'Big Brother'? Should such a thing come to pass, what will be next: An implanted microchip, coded with dietary restrictions? You will only be allowed to purchase meals that your doctor has prescribed. This same sort of chip would not allow those on welfare to purchase alcohol or eat in a restaurant.

No, people need to be responsible for their own choices.

Exactly. I would never buy a vehicle that did such things nor do I need such nanny devices.

What? What are your 'rights' to be safe? Who do you trust?

In an ultimate betrayal of trust a school bus driver has recently been arrested for drunk driving... yes, with children on the bus! The link is but one of many, I am not trying to pick on this individual.

You have no absolute 'right' to be safe. Please do not delude yourself. If someone violates your individual rights, there are avenues of satisfaction. That is how it works.

"Speed limits are not there to spoil your fun, they are there to provide some small measure of safety to all the other people on the planet." I agree, we as a well ordered society have decided, for example, that 65 MPH on the freeway is fast enough. If you exceed the established limit and are caught, there will be some sort of retributive justice.

Thus, the remote ticketing device that is the subject here.

[edit] A well considered and worded response, AH.

How dare someone interfere with that person's right to consume what ever he wants when ever he wants. Just another nanny law that.

In regards to my not having a right to be safe? I refer you to article 3 on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. This I think trumps the NASCAR Billy-bob of Rights.

You have referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am not really certain why you chose that, but OK.

Please refer to Articles 1, 13 and 30.

What is 'Billy-bob'?

Billy-Bob is about the same as the credibility of the UN.

Me? No accidents and no tickets for a long, long, long time. ;-)

My point, which applies to speed limits as well as personnel weight limits, is something I have no difficulty controlling myself. Therefore, I resent the idea that I need someone or some entity to do what I already do with accuracy and responsibility.

You can make the case that your "right" to be safe supersedes everyone else's privilege to drive because anyone else may have a lapse of reason that could lead to you getting injured. However, you would have such a flimsy argument that no attorney will succeed in getting a win on that case.

Most people see the speed limit as some hard and fast law. That is not the case (at least in some states). The speed limit simply give law enforcement a tool to give an officer probable cause that a violator is operating their vehicle in an unsafe way.

The reality is that officers routinely allow people to speed, but will go after those speeders they deem to be a danger. The fact that speed trap cameras are set to trigger 10 miles per hour above the speed limit only supports that claim.

There are two different camps on this line of thinking. One group simply feels that all responsibility should be stripped from people because a few will act irresponsibly.

Another group (which includes myself) feel that people should be empowered with responsibility so that they have the opportunity to act as responsible citizens.

The latter, in my view, allows people to grow intellectually and emotionally. The former stagnates people by stripping all responsibilities and they learn to become totally reliant on their "masters" for everything they need like a dog.

The interstate system was modeled after the Autobahn. The highways were designed for 100 MPH. Few cars at that time could maintain that speed. Today I would not be comfortable driving at that speed, but most vehicles can handle it.

So, as a society, we designed, built, and paid for a 100 MPH road. Not to mention maintaining same, and you come up with a made up right "to be safe" because it makes you feel safer. Let's be reasonable why stop at 70, or 50, let us be really, really safe and drop it to say, 10 MPH.

In case you haven't noticed Vehicle Traffic Law has very little to do with safety but a great deal to do with revenue enhancement.

Running red lights, stop signs, is whole 'nother matter, I'm in favor of cameras for these cases

Like Onstar! I like this, but I believe in personal freedom so I think an average of the above and below speed limits should be allowed so if you get held up by a 'green light texter' or someone with something else to do that's more important than driving, you can make up for lost time once you get on the highway. But if you speed too much at the beginning of the month, you will be held at below average speed for the remainder of that billing period.

But don't worry speeders, sign up for our "Automatically Pay Us What We Want" plan and get back to average speed five days sooner. Tired of being held at below average speed when you haven't been speeding? Upgrade to the new 7G ADS for only $279.99/mo. so you can go the speed you deserve!

Nope! I don't see a problem with this.

In Oz the speed cameras are hidden in plain cars and parked at random along side streets and highways. You can be caught anywhere with no warning.

The limit on a highway is 60km/hr (about 60mph), the tolerance is 3km/hr. Getting a ticket for travelling 105km/hr along a deserted highway really hurts, but as there's no alternative I'll be more careful next time.

Personally I think the highway speeds are too low and are set to raise revenue but have no problem with the 60km/hr limits in residential areas.

In West Oz, radio stations and tv news disclose locations of scheduled fixed speed cameras. callers to radio stations inform us of any other locations cameras have been relocated to.

Yes the cameras in the mobile police vehicles are capable of catching you anywhere without warning, but one might want to consider the speed limit sign as a warning if one would like to reduce to possibility of being caught in that area. If you were intending to break any law, would you expect the authorities to warn you everytime before you do it?

Are the authorities raising revenue by taking advantage of the law?, or has the law been set so that it can be taken advantage of? Regardless, laws are made to be followed. If one chooses not to follow it, then one should not complain when caught breaking it. If someone strongly feels that the law is wrong and speed limits should be increased, then there are avenues available to lobby for a change.

Yes, but you have failed to address the flaws in the system.

1. A machine is more likely to consistently issue tickets based upon what it see's as speeding. Depending upon the sensor technology it uses this can have a tolerance or be completly incorrect.

2. A machine in a fixed location will over time accumulate a "known set" of error conditions, the judge will probably ignore them in favor of the state for simplicity sake.

3. If a police officer were there, lets say alongside an interstate highway on a clear Saturday morning in western Kansas, using a overloaded car with New York state plates as bait, running the NY car past other cars to get them to speed up on this isolated highway, with troopers hiding ahead to catch unsuspecting followers. Explaining they are simply funding this poor county, 75 in a 65mph zone. No attorney required, discount for early payment of $125.

4. If a pair of Oregon State Troopers has each pulled over 25 cars on the interstate in eastern Oregon on a clear day, there is a rock-wall sided place where the officer probably reads his own speed on his radar and if you're alone in your car, you get a ticket. The officer claims there is a poor county that needs your help, 90 in a 70mph zone. The only local attorney is incompetent and very expensive and useless turns a $400 ticket into $1600.

I think the machine is probably safer then the police, attorneys and justice system.

"I think the machine is probably safer then the police, attorneys and justice system"

3. It was western Kansas, out where there are no people.

4. It was eastern Oregon, out where there are no people.

5. Thanksgiving weekend 2004 in downtown Baltimore at dusk, 3 stoplights to a block, angled streets, get in the correct lane to get to the interstate on-ramp, many overhead business signs, and I ran a red light hung amidst the business signs and behind highway on-ramp signs. Got a robo-ticket with my vehicle picture and blown up of license plate number. Only $75.

6. My daughter got a ticket from a WI State Trooper who knew of a "trick spot" where the wind ceased buffeting cars (causing instant speed up) making a false speed reading, the judge also knew of this spot, but didn't care as it produced revenue. Irregardless of the trauma it put on young people who this officer preyed on.

7. I was crossing Nebraska under heavy clouds and strong side winds, I was slightly over the speed limit (maybe 5mph), went across a low bridge and an officer sitting in the ditch in the median pulled out, pulled me over, said I was going too fast, I asked how many speed readings he had of me, he said he had one instantaneous (of when I was behind the wind barrier of the bridge rails), I told him I had my speedometer and my GPS reading speed, he gave me a warning.

I think robo-tickets are better then the "justice" administered by police officers.

Granted robo-tickets could be confused by rain, wind moving them around giving false readings, icing and other contamination.

I've also considered installing cameras, but I understand the police can object to that also.

Given that virtually all vehicles have computers on board and many have two way wireless via cell phone, GM's service etc. it is possible to have the vehicle store and report its speed. Then every single instance of speeding could be punished. Add GPS with local road speed info and it gets even better.

Alternatively a vehicles computer could be used to simply limit the maximum speed both in absolute terms but also in duration of the speeding event.

But let's face it, a game of "catch me if you can" is much more fun, involves police in an unnecessary waste of time and money, or for fixed installations only at certain locations. Both only catch those few drivers unfortunate to be speeding in the wrong place and time.

If speeding is bad, use technology to catch everyone all the time and without police effort. Ain't technology wonderful?

It is about the money, behind the mask of "safety".

About ten years ago they installed traffic light cameras / automatic ticketing systems in Guilford County, NC. There were lots of problems. Many tickets were never paid - just ignored, especially after it became known that the tickets were issued by the company that monitored the cameras - not local police. Also hurting court cases were demonstrations that the equipment wasn't reliable (including several pictures that showed a car stopped at the light, but got a ticket anyway due to possibly needing the tripping point adjusted). But the final killer was a dispute over the fines collected. The County's share of the fines was going to a vague slush fund... then the local school district's lawyers produced an old law that required that the majority of the fines should go to the school district. They sued for a large percentage of the fines collected, plus penalties and interest. The County couldn't afford to pay so it got the case shelved and took down all of the cameras. Meanwhile, nobody has ever able to prove that the cameras had any measureable effect upon traffic safety.

I had to suppress my knee jerk reaction on this one. Generally I am opposed to the nanny state, and speed traps, and I tend to speed a little. I figure if over half the people on a given road at a given time are exceeding the speed limit, they feel it is safe to do so. In that case, we should be reevaluating the speed limit and/or making drivers more aware of specific unseen dangers at that location, not issuing more tickets in the name of safety.

When I started to think of this issue strictly in terms of safety, I concluded it likely does increase safety contrary to what the author stated. "It generates revenue, but it doesn't actually increase traffic safety by stopping the speeder."

I believe it is exactly the effect of slowing traffic without stopping it that improves safety over an officer pulling over speeders.

We have all been in a line of cars driving down a road when suddenly you see all the brake lights in front of you come on, all the following distances shrink. One guy not paying attention at that instant is too late getting on the brake and either swerves onto the shoulder, another lane, or hits the car in front of him. Followed by a line of cars not seeing his late brake light adding to the pileup. What was the cause of the sudden slowdown that precipitated this accident? Could be an animal in the road, a breakdown or other accident, rubber-neckers, or the last second spotting of a cop in a speed trap, or a cop suddenly pulling out of a speed trap.

While higher speeds are predictably more dangerous than lower speeds due to an increased closing speed with relation to stationary objects, it is likely far more dangerous and unpredictable for many moving objects to suddenly change their closing speeds with each other.

We have seen on TV police officers and motorists pulled over struck by passing cars. I wonder what the probability of such an event is. I would like to see a study in which a camera or sensor points at a section of road where a speed trap is occasionally set up. Obviously traffic will slow when the officer is there. Many people then take the assumptive leap that this means motorists on this stretch of road are safer when a cop is there. But monitored over a long period of several months to years when a statistically significant number of accidents or near accidents have occurred on that stretch of road, look at the frequency of accidents while the speed trap is occupied vs unoccupied. That should be the definative answer to whether speed traps(human or speed camera) are good or bad.

With a stationary speed camera that is always on(I really hate the fact that I am supporting these evil devices BTW) soon the locals know exactly where it is and begin slowing down around it. But they slow down gradually as they approach it, not all of a sudden in a panicked state. That prompts most other drivers that just naturally adjust their speed to that of prevailing traffic to slow down as well. There will still be the rare idiot that does 100mph wherever he is going. He will get nailed by the camera. Yes, he will not be stopped immediately by it, however the cop, now freed from speed trap duty can actually be out patrolling for idiots like this and be more effective. The idiot gets nailed twice which should have a larger impact on his behavior. Perhaps, if the speed camera senses a speed over 100mph or a series of high speed triggers on a given route it could alert highway patrol to dispatch a unit to the offenders next predicted intersection.

Dustin Maki