6 ms·

Many ways to skin a cat. Design roads properly, sure. But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. Red light cameras certain

Many ways to skin a cat. Design roads properly, sure. But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. Red light cameras certainly have that effect on red light running, and the negation just seems absurd to me. As a bonus, aggressive ticketing requires no new infrastructure.

Retric 9y ago
Red light cameras increase accidents because people speed up if they think they are even slightly close to the limit. Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.
- obstinate 9y ago
  Your ideas about what red light cameras do are contradicted by the actual studies done to see what red light cameras do. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    Red light cameras increase rear end collisions and decrease side impact collisions; but side impact collisions are more dangerous. The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light. But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
    - obstinate 9y ago
      I'm interested to read a citation that shows that increasing yellow light length is superior to RLCs. Please send it my way. Thank you.
      - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
        Compare the percentages for right-angle crashes on page 63 of your link to the numbers here: http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Compendium%20of%20Yellow%20Interval%20Increase%20Studies.pdf http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com... Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
        obstinate 9y ago
        This is interesting, but it seems to mostly be focused on violations rather than crashes. I can see how the two might be related. But I also somewhat suspect that early into red violations may not be the type of red light running that causes accidents the most.
    - douche 9y ago
      In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much - people just keep going through until the light turns red. At least in this state, as long as you have already entered an intersection before the light turns red, you haven't run the red light. I would think that a better strategy would be to increase the delay before turning the next light green, after the last one turned red.
      - u801e 9y ago
        > In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much Studies done in Virginia and Texas contradict that assertion. Increasing the yellow phase time decreased the incidence of red light running and the effect was sustained over time.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Around here red light cameras where removed. I heard it was because they where found to significantly increase accidents.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      It's a complex matter. The company demands to retain control over the camera and makes the municipality pay rent if not enough tickets are issued. Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
      - reitanqild 9y ago
        Around here is not US and while I haven't seen anything written about such incentives I think that might be because any setup like that would be found illegal.
    - obstinate 9y ago
      Your "I heard" is not a relevant response to my linked meta-analysis.
  - Retric 9y ago
    That's not what your link says, there is a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. It found this by: The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes. Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
    - obstinate 9y ago
      It examined the extent to which the rear end crashes negated the economic advantages, and found that they did not fully negate the economic advantages. They instead had an economic advantage of ~40-50k USD per site per year. See pages 5, 68, 74. This is why it's important to go further into papers than just reading the abstract.
      - Retric 9y ago
        I say they increase accidents you say, that's not true they lower costs. I say that does not mean they lower accidents. You respond yes they do, they lower cost. Do you really want me to say that's not my argument using different words? If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs. PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.
bsder 9y ago
> But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect. The question is: What's the goal? The article shows you how to increase safety. What is your goal in busting speeders?
- obstinate 9y ago
  Where in the article is there any experimental evidence, or evidence of any kind, that increasing speed limits increases safety? They found one guy who thinks it does, which is not very convincing. My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
  - mos_basik 9y ago
    >When the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile speed, the minority of drivers that do conscientiously follow speed limits are no longer driving much slower than the speed of traffic. The choice of the 85th percentile speed is a data-driven conclusion -- as noted Lt. Megge and speed limit resources like the Michigan State Police’s guide -- that has been established by the consistent findings of years of traffic studies. >This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      And again, because everyone thinks a speed it's safe doesn't mean a speed it's safe. People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
      - 9y ago
zaphar 9y ago
What you propose is taking something that has essentially 0 effect on speed right now. And then doing that thing harder. Furthermore the result of not having an effect on speed but posting an authoritative sign that has little to no reflection of the actual speed has a detrimental effect on safety for pedestrians and non-automotive traffic. There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result." The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.
- obstinate 9y ago
  I don't think either of the following have been established: 1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed. 2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all). Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    The problem is that it's really an economic problem. The existing enforcement is a revenue generation method -- everybody exceeds the speed limit, so you can put a cop anywhere who can just sit there and hand out tickets. It's net income for the government, but there isn't enough enforcement to actually change behavior. If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
    - obstinate 9y ago
      That's an interesting technical problem. PID controllers answer a similar problem in control theory. I don't have the answer here, and I'm not certain there is one. It really depends on how many more cops we'd need to get to a state where enforcement can be rigorous, and whether we as a society prefer the tradeoff of paying for those enforcers to get safer roads. Tough question. But I like tricky questions aimed in a true direction better than easy, wrong answers like, "ticketing people has no effect on speeding."
feld 9y ago
You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. Traffic cameras have got to go.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  This has been covered to death on here, but your accuser is the officer of the court who signs the ticket, not the camera.
  - feld 9y ago
    Has there been something more recent than this case? http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf "Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg. In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable." The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.
    - Godel_unicode 9y ago
      Yes, there have been a lot of unsuccessful defenses based around the camera being your accuser, here's the first one I found. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html
  - u801e 9y ago
    For traffic violations where a law enforcement officer initiates a traffic stop, it's clear that the officer witnessed the violation and when issuing a citation, list details such as the make and model of the vehicle, the identity of the driver, the location of the offense and what what the offense was. If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc. He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
jakobegger 9y ago
The way to go are automated radars, that are clearly visible. They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit. Everyone sticks to the speed limit now. A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either. With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.
- terryf 9y ago
  So you like the fact that the police know exactly where and when you drove? Because the licence plate tracking cameras require that, you know. Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly. Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5 Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
  - nicky0 9y ago
    I see. Your'e saying: since speed limits aren't perfect in all cases, so lets not have them at all.
    - terryf 9y ago
      I do believe in increasing personal responsibility of people and having less of a nanny state, so I do tend towards that answer, but it's really not that black and white. On highways and places where pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed - yes, no speed limit makes a lot of sense (and is available in Germany for example) In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution. I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.
godshatter 9y ago
I live near a couple of rural small-town speed traps. Yes, I have learned to set my cruise control to 45mph at the sign that is a ridiculous distance from town on otherwise normal highway to avoid tickets. The problem is, not everyone is a local, so you have people driving 45 and people trying to drive 60+ on a two lane highway with all the tailgating and reckless driving that entails. The speed trap isn't making anyone safer, it's just making those police departments richer.

Retric 9y ago

Red light cameras increase accidents because people speed up if they think they are even slightly close to the limit. Think of it this way, which changes behavior getting a ticket in 4-6 weeks by mail or having a cop pull you over today. Or worse watching someone get a ticket, or possibly noticing a flash and having no idea what it's from.

obstinate 9y ago
Your ideas about what red light cameras do are contradicted by the actual studies done to see what red light cameras do. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/...
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  Red light cameras increase rear end collisions and decrease side impact collisions; but side impact collisions are more dangerous. The problem, of course, is that there is a better way to reduce side impact collisions -- and red light running in general -- which is to increase the length of the yellow light. But because doing that actually does reduce the number of people who run a red light, the intersections with red light cameras do the opposite of that, because they need people to run red lights in order to generate revenue and pay for the cameras. And if you compare the results at red light camera intersections with short yellow lights against normal intersections with appropriately timed yellow lights, the cameras are killing people.
  - obstinate 9y ago
    I'm interested to read a citation that shows that increasing yellow light length is superior to RLCs. Please send it my way. Thank you.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      Compare the percentages for right-angle crashes on page 63 of your link to the numbers here: http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Compendium%20of%20Yellow%20Interval%20Increase%20Studies.pdf http://saferstreetsla.org/wp-content/uploads/reports/A%20Com... Assuming the number of right-angle crashes is proportional to the number of people who run red lights, the reduction due to having a longer yellow light is larger than the reduction due to the RLC. And that's before considering the rear-end collisions, which a red light camera increases but a longer yellow light reduces.
      - obstinate 9y ago
        This is interesting, but it seems to mostly be focused on violations rather than crashes. I can see how the two might be related. But I also somewhat suspect that early into red violations may not be the type of red light running that causes accidents the most.
  - douche 9y ago
    In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much - people just keep going through until the light turns red. At least in this state, as long as you have already entered an intersection before the light turns red, you haven't run the red light. I would think that a better strategy would be to increase the delay before turning the next light green, after the last one turned red.
    - u801e 9y ago
      > In my experience, I don't see that longer yellow lights really help much Studies done in Virginia and Texas contradict that assertion. Increasing the yellow phase time decreased the incidence of red light running and the effect was sustained over time.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Around here red light cameras where removed. I heard it was because they where found to significantly increase accidents.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    It's a complex matter. The company demands to retain control over the camera and makes the municipality pay rent if not enough tickets are issued. Rlc issue is that incentive structure is all wrong, which lead to shortened yellows and people doing emergency braking at the slightest hint of light change.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      Around here is not US and while I haven't seen anything written about such incentives I think that might be because any setup like that would be found illegal.
  - obstinate 9y ago
    Your "I heard" is not a relevant response to my linked meta-analysis.
- Retric 9y ago
  That's not what your link says, there is a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. It found this by: The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes. Rear end crashes cost less than right angle crashes. Further this does not mean there was a lower severity of crashes simply fixing doors costs more.
  - obstinate 9y ago
    It examined the extent to which the rear end crashes negated the economic advantages, and found that they did not fully negate the economic advantages. They instead had an economic advantage of ~40-50k USD per site per year. See pages 5, 68, 74. This is why it's important to go further into papers than just reading the abstract.
    - Retric 9y ago
      I say they increase accidents you say, that's not true they lower costs. I say that does not mean they lower accidents. You respond yes they do, they lower cost. Do you really want me to say that's not my argument using different words? If your point is sure they cause more accidents but that's ok because X then use that argument don't pretend there are zero costs. PS: Economic arguments are very easy to manipulate based on what you do and do not count. So, yes I also disagree with the study, but that's not the argument I am making.

bsder 9y ago

> But I'm pretty confident that more aggressive ticketing would decrease speeding. It's also a good way to push people onto alternate roads which may be more dangerous or go through a neighborhood. It's also a good way to get people to completely avoid your roads and make your city or town dry up and blow away along with anybody that your roads connect. The question is: What's the goal? The article shows you how to increase safety. What is your goal in busting speeders?

obstinate 9y ago
Where in the article is there any experimental evidence, or evidence of any kind, that increasing speed limits increases safety? They found one guy who thinks it does, which is not very convincing. My goal in busting speeders is to increase safety. I just think the article is poorly reasoned and unconvincing in its claim that raising speed limits is an effective way to do that.
- mos_basik 9y ago
  >When the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile speed, the minority of drivers that do conscientiously follow speed limits are no longer driving much slower than the speed of traffic. The choice of the 85th percentile speed is a data-driven conclusion -- as noted Lt. Megge and speed limit resources like the Michigan State Police’s guide -- that has been established by the consistent findings of years of traffic studies. >This is important because, as noted in a U.S. Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.”
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    And again, because everyone thinks a speed it's safe doesn't mean a speed it's safe. People may believe it is, but phisics laws are hard to fool. Meanwhile people are well known to not understand risk and probability.
    - 9y ago

zaphar 9y ago

What you propose is taking something that has essentially 0 effect on speed right now. And then doing that thing harder. Furthermore the result of not having an effect on speed but posting an authoritative sign that has little to no reflection of the actual speed has a detrimental effect on safety for pedestrians and non-automotive traffic. There's a famous saying that goes something like this: "The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result." The article is proposing not doing the insane thing and instead doing something that studies show have the actual effect desired.

obstinate 9y ago
I don't think either of the following have been established: 1. We should expect existing lax enforcement to have a significant effect on speed. 2. Existing lax enforcement has a nonexistent effect compared to the baseline (no enforcement at all). Even if you established both of these, it still wouldn't be sufficient to make the logical inference that rigorous enforcement would be ineffective for decreasing speeds. It would not be at all surprising that behavior goes unchanged if enforcement rates are below 0.1%. It would be very surprising if enforcement rates closer to 10% had no power to change behavior.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  The problem is that it's really an economic problem. The existing enforcement is a revenue generation method -- everybody exceeds the speed limit, so you can put a cop anywhere who can just sit there and hand out tickets. It's net income for the government, but there isn't enough enforcement to actually change behavior. If you added more police then people would stop speeding, but then people stop speeding -- there is no more ticket revenue. Now how are you paying for all the traffic cops?
  - obstinate 9y ago
    That's an interesting technical problem. PID controllers answer a similar problem in control theory. I don't have the answer here, and I'm not certain there is one. It really depends on how many more cops we'd need to get to a state where enforcement can be rigorous, and whether we as a society prefer the tradeoff of paying for those enforcers to get safer roads. Tough question. But I like tricky questions aimed in a true direction better than easy, wrong answers like, "ticketing people has no effect on speeding."

feld 9y ago

You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. Traffic cameras have got to go.

Godel_unicode 9y ago
This has been covered to death on here, but your accuser is the officer of the court who signs the ticket, not the camera.
- feld 9y ago
  Has there been something more recent than this case? http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/ca-macias.pdf "Here, Officer Berg did not qualify as the appropriate witness and did not have the necessary knowledge of the underlying workings, maintenance, or recordkeeping of the Redflex Traffic System. The foundation for the introduction of photographical evidence and the underlying workings of the Redflex Traffic System was outside the personal knowledge of Officer Berg. In absence of a proper foundation, the photographic evidence was held inadmissable." The officer cannot be the accuser and introduce the evidence if he has no expertise in how the evidence was obtained.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    Yes, there have been a lot of unsuccessful defenses based around the camera being your accuser, here's the first one I found. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1669146.html
- u801e 9y ago
  For traffic violations where a law enforcement officer initiates a traffic stop, it's clear that the officer witnessed the violation and when issuing a citation, list details such as the make and model of the vehicle, the identity of the driver, the location of the offense and what what the offense was. If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc. He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.

jakobegger 9y ago

The way to go are automated radars, that are clearly visible. They recently installed a new radar at a local highway, right at the beginning of a speed limit. Everyone sticks to the speed limit now. A different section of the highway has "section control". (Cameras at the beginning and end of a section that record license plates and determine average speed). Nobody speeds there either. With todays technology it is trivial to enforce speed limits everywhere, and people really do stick to the speed limit if they know that there are consequences.

terryf 9y ago
So you like the fact that the police know exactly where and when you drove? Because the licence plate tracking cameras require that, you know. Also, the notion that there is some universal speed limit that makes driving safe on a particular road is silly. Two scenarios with speed limit of x: 1) sunny day, brand new porsche, new tyres. I'm driving at a sped of x+5 2) windy, snowy day, nissan sunny from the 80s with almost worn out tyres. I'm driving at x-5 Pick the safer one. I doubt anyone would think option 2 is safer, yet 1 is illegal and 2 is perfectly fine.
- nicky0 9y ago
  I see. Your'e saying: since speed limits aren't perfect in all cases, so lets not have them at all.
  - terryf 9y ago
    I do believe in increasing personal responsibility of people and having less of a nanny state, so I do tend towards that answer, but it's really not that black and white. On highways and places where pedestrians and bicyclists are not allowed - yes, no speed limit makes a lot of sense (and is available in Germany for example) In cities and suburbs where kids can run into the street in unexpected places - more thought is needed what is the best solution. I've actually gotten a speeding ticket because I was going 35km/h in a "construction" zone with a temporary 30km/h limit on a freaking Sunday with nobody around. That is also clearly ridiculous.

godshatter 9y ago

I live near a couple of rural small-town speed traps. Yes, I have learned to set my cruise control to 45mph at the sign that is a ridiculous distance from town on otherwise normal highway to avoid tickets. The problem is, not everyone is a local, so you have people driving 45 and people trying to drive 60+ on a two lane highway with all the tailgating and reckless driving that entails. The speed trap isn't making anyone safer, it's just making those police departments richer.