NSA collected phone records - Tens of millions of calls

[sv-wolf]

Since cameras arent widespread yet, how can you have any useful data to back this opinion up?

If people drive 80mph to work and get 10 tickets in the mail for it, you can bet it will get their attention and they'll slow down.

Anyone can argue that speed laws are designed just for revenue. The cameras are NO different, they just do it better and catch your sorry butt easier. People can talk all they want, but really they are just peeved because now they cant get away with what they've been doing for their whole life.

Not true. Here in the UK speed cameras are extremely widespread. Since they were introduced the number of police patrols has dropped dramatically, and the number of convictions for other traffic related offences like drink driving and use of mobile (cell) phones has plummeted.

Not only are cameras widespread but there has been a considerable amount of research on their use and abuse by the police partnerships that run them. There is no question that the siting of cameras, for instance, is frequently chosen to catch the maximum number of speeders (i.e. generate the maximum amount of revenue) and not to save the maximum number of lives. For instance, if there is an accident black spot on a road you will often find a camera sited not near where these accidents happen but half a mile down the road at the end of a dual carriage where it can catch drivers/riders who do not slow down quickly enough (but who might perfectly well have slowed down under the limit by the time they reach the place where accidents frequently happen).

It is not only 'anyone' who can argue that speed cameras are designed to raise revenue. Here in the UK, this is also the view of several respected academic reports whose teams have researched this matter thoroughly.

You've also completely ignored my point that speeding is not a major cause of accidents. There is a lot of other much more dangerous behaviour on the roads which is now being ignored in favour of catching speeders - who are easy targets, as niblett pointed out. UK government research lists speeding as ninth in the causes of accidents - well down the list. But drivers whose driving could be described as showing one of the top causes are now not being caught.

One other thing that research here shows - cameras tend to catch the driver who speeds occasionally and not the one that does it all the time.

BTW I've never been caught speeding by a camera. This is not the issue for me.

BTW2, here in the UK if you get four tickets for speeding you lose your licence. People still do it.

[flynrider]

Not to mention the fact who says the people in control of this system can be trusted. Who watches the watchers ?

If you want to see the absolute absurdity of this read 1984 or Brave New World. If you don't feel like reading the movie "Gattica" would be acceptable. It's similar to the book Brave New World.

One of the problems I have with photo radar is exactly what you mentioned above. Instead of being pulled over, identified and issued a summons by a police officer, I'm now accused by a machine run by a private company who has a financial stake in my guilt. Do you think everyone gets a fair shake?

In some juristictions, speeding tickets are considered administrative offences (like parking tickets), so you can't appeal to an actual court of law. The only appeal is with the company that will keep a percentage of your fine. This company also had the leverage of suspending your license if you don't pay up promptly. Sounds more like an extortion racket than the due process of law.

Many years ago, when they started using photo radar around here, the speeding ticket company would send a bill to the owner of the car, along with the photo and speed readout from the camera. If the owner denied that it was him in the photo, the company would threaten to revoke his license if he didn't either pay up, or identify the driver. Hmm, that's not the way non-mechanical speed enforcement works.

Certain judges in jurisdictions where the tickets can be appealed are just tossing them out if contested (to the dismay of city treasurers). They recognize that the systems in place, bypass much of the due process afforded to those ticketed by actual police officers.

[MrGompers]

You've also completely ignored my point that speeding is not a major cause of accidents.

I agree with that 100%. Numerous studies have shown this to be true.
If you talk to professional drivers such as cabbies or truckers they'll say its the difference in speeds that cause accidents.

To illustrate. Someone is driving on the highway at 65MPH in the left lane. Now the limit is 65MPH so he's not breaking the law. However, everyone behind him wants to do 75MPH. What do those people do ?

They change lanes (sometimes more than one lane at a time) to do anything to get around this guy doing 65MPH. Thus, increasing the chances of causing an accident.

If the speed limit was 75MPH this wouldn't have happened. And if it did the police should pull over the slow poke and ticket him for driving too slow.

Maybe we should have multiple speed limits depending on what lane your in? Isn't the autobahn this way ?

[camthepyro]

If the speed limit were raised to 75mph, than everyone would go 85mph (although, here they go 85mph in a 65 normally). The point is, everyone will always push the limits just as much as the can get away with it. When roads are designed (especially highways) they build them keeping in mind that people won't be going 65mph on them, they'll be goin at leas 75.

[dieziege]

That's not entirely true... here in CA a lot of speed limits are set by hooking up a traffic speed sensor on the road, figuring out the average driver speed, and setting that as the limit.

The limits are pretty reasonable... 45, 35, a few 55 or even 60...I'm talking about surface streets, not highways... and that's what most people drive even when the signs go up.

The problem is when a road's limits don't match the road's traffic. For example, I live off an undivided highway. When the national 55MPH speed limit was repealed, the highway department did their survey trick and raised the limit on that road to 65. Then the state legislature came in and said undivided highways are dangerous (most fatality accidents are on that type of road) and the limits need to be 55... and so the limit is 55... and guess what... everyone still drives 65.

The "10 over" rule is a product of incorrect speed limits, not drivers routinely pushing the limits of what they can get away with.

[MrGompers]

One of the problems I have with photo radar is exactly what you mentioned above. Instead of being pulled over, identified and issued a summons by a police officer, I'm now accused by a machine run by a private company who has a financial stake in my guilt. Do you think everyone gets a fair shake?

Not to mention the fact that our right to due process is being violated. Thats prolly why they are trying to make these tickets "administrative" just like parking tickets.
Its not like you can protest a parking ticket for lack of due process.

There was a real famous case involving photo radar a few years back. I can't find a link to the story, but am pretty sure it happened in Texas.

Here's what happened. A guy gets caught by photo radar. The ticket + photo gets sent to his house. heres the good part

Wife opens the letter. Photo shows hubby with another woman in the car.
Needless to say they later get divorced.

Everyone thought this was the fatal death blow to photo radar. Invasion of privacy etc. Too bad it didn't turn out that way. Now they don't send the photos out with the tickets. You go to the court or where ever to see them. I do believe tho that no one can see the photos except the accused and prosecution.

Here in Conn we have a law that bans all "photo enforcement of traffic" they still moniter trafffic via cameras, but can not issue any tickets based on this.

However, due to a major nasty big accident last year there is a movement brewing here to repeal that law. Of course its in the interest of "saving the children" If you vote against a law that "saves the children" your an asshat & your political opponents will use it against you no doubt.

[MrGompers]

If the speed limit were raised to 75mph, than everyone would go 85mph (although, here they go 85mph in a 65 normally). The point is, everyone will always push the limits just as much as the can get away with it. When roads are designed (especially highways) they build them keeping in mind that people won't be going 65mph on them, they'll be goin at leas 75.

What I was trying to illustrate is if the speed limits were higher asshats doing 65MPH in the left lane wouldn't happen. The reason why those asshats are doing 65MPH in the left lane is because thats the speed limit & "technically" legal.

Just because somthing is legal that doesn't make it safe. Raise the speed limit to 85MPH and I don't think you'll see many people doing it. People find there own comfort speed zone and stay there. Plus some krappy cars won't do 85MPH.

For this to work the police need to ticket the slower drivers. Beat it into thier heads that left lane is for passing & right lane is for cruising.

I used to see these signs in Jersey everywhere "stay right except to pass"

[Kal]

Hmmm Wolf, Nibblet and I all seem to be the most twitchy about speed cameras - we all live in the UK where there are loads of them.

There are roads in the UK where there are so many cameras that it is possible to lose your licence in a 1/4 mile period. I'm tuned into the UK Bikers community on Live Journal where news has just been broken of speed cameras that have a 2mph margin of error - while speedos in vehicles have a 10% margin of error unless regularly calibrated*

If we get tagged then the first we know about it is a letter in the mail asking us to name the driver or recieve 6 points on our licence and a larger fine as the vehicles owner. Effectively it requires the [s]vicitm[/s] suspect to confess without the benefit of a legal caution - something the Police are required to give for ANY other crime.

In resopnce there is a crime that is rising in popularity, cloning or ringing a vehicle. Giving a vehicle the same plates as an innocent motorist. (This is one arguement for fitting blackboxes) You may not even know you're vehicle ha been cloned until you recieve a letter in the mail asking you to 'fess up to the speeding offence, and nothing will help you if you cannot prove beyond all doubt that your vehilce is not the one that the camera caught.


Other problems with cameras are they were only ever tested on cars. Independant testing has concluded because of the profile of a bike cameras can take part of the speed reading from the road leading to massively inaccurate speed readings. This has been known about for some time, but the Governement and Police Partnerships aren't interested.

I could go on about cameras for a long while, but they are no replacement for real Police Officers.

*British traffic Police are the only officers that can issue tickets based on what their car was doing when it was following you. This is because only their cars have the speedos calibrated everytime they go out and everytime they return to the station.

[scan]

This last post expresses some of the most common concerns and corruptions of the technology.

Also - I have been to Colorado near Denver on the road. There are places on the highway there where the speed limit was 75MPH. I hardly saw one speeder there, including myself. I personally think most highways are engineered for much faster speed. Why do we slow it down? For safety. But safety is not at stake with faster speeds. It makes no sense to me. But that is a hi-jack of the subject.

Basically, the camera thing is flawed, but we keep going round and round on the topic. Those who like it say - well, don't speed. Like those who are for eve's dropping on the phone - if you have nothing to hide, then you wouldn't worry about wire-tapping. I'm suppose to feel good that I'm being watched and listened to because I'm doing nothing wrong. If I'm doing nothing wrong then I should be left alone.

[Mintbread]

In the Northern Territory of Australia most of the roads have no speed limits. Every time national road toll figures spring up, the NT has the least amount of fatalities, if any.