4 ms·

There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.

by jmulho 8y ago

grimjack00 8y ago
It'll be interesting to see what happens when autonomous cars that stick to the speed limit become the majority of traffic.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  The speed limits will go up to reflect reality by then so it won't matter who/what is driving the car.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I think the point is that the revenue from these fines would drop if compliance was perfect.
- Brockenstein 8y ago
  Well I imagine step one will be to keep raising the penalties for speeding on the remaining manual drivers. After all it will be like 20 years before autonomous cars are a significant minority. Some people will refuse to buy them for years. People will be buying cheap used cards for years, and those will be normal cars for quite a long time. Dollars to doughnuts the sensors and cameras and whatnot on a lot of autonomous cars will fail before the car itself does, rendering them back to manual. And again the used car market isn't going away. There might be plenty of manual drivers in fifty years.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > rendering them back to manual. I don't think self driving cars will even have a steering wheel. It would probably be cheaper to buy a new car than to convert a self driving car back to manual operation.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  That's one of the near-future threats to government funding that is going to cause some very interesting public arguments that don't match the private fears. - Autonomous cars will massively reduce income from speeding fines - Electric cars will reduce the incoming tax revenue from buying fuel (in Australia this is a large component that also goes into funding the maintenance of the roads) - Solar power reducing overall household spend on power, which is potentially another large source of tax revenue The last two things keeps more money in the pockets of consumers, which will therefore probably get spent on other things, so could be closer to a zero-sum game than it looks. Until some kind of rule change comes in to create new government revenue streams, it's the early adopters getting the benefits so far (for example, Australia is considering additional taxes on electric cars to make up for the 'road maintenance' component the government won't be getting due to their not buying fuel. No word on incentives for "clean air" or "reduced emissions" benefits though...).
  - dylan604 8y ago
    Not to worry. I'm sure there will be a new autonomous vehicle registration fee to implemented to help offset any losses. This registration will of course be on top of any existing registration fees. They could also use some sort of algorithm that looks at each driver's record. If you have a history of speeding, they can just go ahead and asses extra fees for you since the algorithm extrapolated you would have had more tickets anyways. If you have a clean record, then the algo will go ahead and decide you're "due" for a ticket, and charge you accordingly. Why not, insurance companies do it.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
      BLKNSLVR's road maintenance tax seems like a legitimate tax, fwiw.
clairity 8y ago
i really dislike speed traps. i'd even support a proposition to convert all speed limits to suggested speeds (thereby abolishing fines for speeding). you could and should still punish dangerous driving, but speed by itself wouldn't serve as the threshold for unsafe driving.
- mc32 8y ago
  Problem with that is that for the most part speed is a pretty objective measure —whereas “dangerous driving” isn’t, so will result in uneven interpretation/application.
  - clairity 8y ago
    agreed. i considered that for a second, but i figure the real policy makers would spend a little more time thinking that part through. =)
  - JeffreyKaine 8y ago
    Choosing to enforce a speeding law is still subjective though, so this wouldn't change much. We speed all over California, police choose to go after the most dangerous (or least conforming to community standards, or... some other even less good measure, like race). Most policing is subjective.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I understand that but at least you know what to expect: “I’m going 42mph in a 35 zone, I might get pulled over and issued a ticket”, vs. “hmmm I wonder if going 35mph is dangerous driving, does passing a bike mean it’s dangerous? Does it being dusk mean it’s dangerous? Huh, I don’t really know”.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    As someone who was ticketed for going the speed limit on a bright sunny day on a rural highway with no other cars around, where the cop wrote down two different speeds and it just happened to be the last day of the month... I assure you it is not always objective. Cost me 5x to fight it what the ticket would have been, but it's the principle of the matter.

There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.

by jmulho 8y ago

There are governments in rural areas funded by speed traps.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when autonomous cars that stick to the speed limit become the majority of traffic.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
The speed limits will go up to reflect reality by then so it won't matter who/what is driving the car.
- taeric 8y ago
  I think the point is that the revenue from these fines would drop if compliance was perfect.
Brockenstein 8y ago
Well I imagine step one will be to keep raising the penalties for speeding on the remaining manual drivers. After all it will be like 20 years before autonomous cars are a significant minority. Some people will refuse to buy them for years. People will be buying cheap used cards for years, and those will be normal cars for quite a long time. Dollars to doughnuts the sensors and cameras and whatnot on a lot of autonomous cars will fail before the car itself does, rendering them back to manual. And again the used car market isn't going away. There might be plenty of manual drivers in fifty years.
- landryraccoon 8y ago
  > rendering them back to manual. I don't think self driving cars will even have a steering wheel. It would probably be cheaper to buy a new car than to convert a self driving car back to manual operation.
BLKNSLVR 8y ago
That's one of the near-future threats to government funding that is going to cause some very interesting public arguments that don't match the private fears. - Autonomous cars will massively reduce income from speeding fines - Electric cars will reduce the incoming tax revenue from buying fuel (in Australia this is a large component that also goes into funding the maintenance of the roads) - Solar power reducing overall household spend on power, which is potentially another large source of tax revenue The last two things keeps more money in the pockets of consumers, which will therefore probably get spent on other things, so could be closer to a zero-sum game than it looks. Until some kind of rule change comes in to create new government revenue streams, it's the early adopters getting the benefits so far (for example, Australia is considering additional taxes on electric cars to make up for the 'road maintenance' component the government won't be getting due to their not buying fuel. No word on incentives for "clean air" or "reduced emissions" benefits though...).
- dylan604 8y ago
  Not to worry. I'm sure there will be a new autonomous vehicle registration fee to implemented to help offset any losses. This registration will of course be on top of any existing registration fees. They could also use some sort of algorithm that looks at each driver's record. If you have a history of speeding, they can just go ahead and asses extra fees for you since the algorithm extrapolated you would have had more tickets anyways. If you have a clean record, then the algo will go ahead and decide you're "due" for a ticket, and charge you accordingly. Why not, insurance companies do it.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    BLKNSLVR's road maintenance tax seems like a legitimate tax, fwiw.

clairity 8y ago

i really dislike speed traps. i'd even support a proposition to convert all speed limits to suggested speeds (thereby abolishing fines for speeding). you could and should still punish dangerous driving, but speed by itself wouldn't serve as the threshold for unsafe driving.

mc32 8y ago
Problem with that is that for the most part speed is a pretty objective measure —whereas “dangerous driving” isn’t, so will result in uneven interpretation/application.
- clairity 8y ago
  agreed. i considered that for a second, but i figure the real policy makers would spend a little more time thinking that part through. =)
- JeffreyKaine 8y ago
  Choosing to enforce a speeding law is still subjective though, so this wouldn't change much. We speed all over California, police choose to go after the most dangerous (or least conforming to community standards, or... some other even less good measure, like race). Most policing is subjective.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I understand that but at least you know what to expect: “I’m going 42mph in a 35 zone, I might get pulled over and issued a ticket”, vs. “hmmm I wonder if going 35mph is dangerous driving, does passing a bike mean it’s dangerous? Does it being dusk mean it’s dangerous? Huh, I don’t really know”.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  As someone who was ticketed for going the speed limit on a bright sunny day on a rural highway with no other cars around, where the cop wrote down two different speeds and it just happened to be the last day of the month... I assure you it is not always objective. Cost me 5x to fight it what the ticket would have been, but it's the principle of the matter.