6 ms·

"Some protesters feel speed cameras are solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor." This is also the case in Central and Eastern Euro

"Some protesters feel speed cameras are solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor." This is also the case in Central and Eastern Europe. EDIT: Please read what I cited properly. The citation includes the "Some protesters feel ..." part, which is what I meant - that many people in central and eastern Europe feel the same, not that I feel they're right (what I think is irrelevant).

aerodog 8y ago
In the Bay Area (San Francisco etc.), it's not necessarily "from the poor", but I've been punished in excess of $500 for not coming to a complete stop at a red light (only having slowed down). It's like this everywhere - it's a tool for extortion. And it's terrible.
- jedberg 8y ago
  Usually you can just ignore those tickets. They can't prove you got the ticket, nor can they prove you were driving. And if they send it to a collection agency, you can demand proof of the debt and they will usually just give up. But yeah, they're installed by 3rd parties and are usually just there to make money.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  California stops are very dangerous to pedestrians.
D_Guidi 8y ago
the poor simply can respect the rules like the rich, right?
- zuppy 8y ago
  you got it wrong: the rich will pay, but that amount means nothing to them.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    That's where the penalty points come in - you can't pay your way out of losing your licence once you get enough of them. The fine might be meaningless but having to stop driving for 12 months is not.
    - naz 8y ago
      Penalty points also disproportionately affect the poor, who are more likely to depend on their driving license for their income
      - gambiting 8y ago
        So what do you propose? That we punish people who put others in danger less because they are poor? Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor. They aren't any less of a danger just because they have a family that depends on them. Someone they hit won't be any less dead because the driver has 5 children and mountains of debt.
        TomMarius 8y ago
        > Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor. Actually we could argue that it's more likely due to the poor average condition and old age of their cars. A new Mercedes brakes much better than a 20 year old Skoda and usually has auto-braking systems and braking force enhancers. However "going through a city" is very general. There are several actual highways (by law as well as by construction standards) in Prague going through the city where the speed limit (70 km/h) is frequently broken with no possible victims - the exact same road has 130 km/h limit outside the city.
        mnx 8y ago
        That speed limit might be more noise related. So the harm is much different, but the victims are people living nearby.
- gambiting 8y ago
  I mean, if the speed limit says 50km/h, then you should be doing 50km/h, regardless of the size of your bank account. If someone hits a pedestrian and kills them because they were doing twice the speed limit, "yeah but I'm poor" is not a valid defence.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    That's not the point. It costs a poor person more to speed because they have less money. Conversely it costs a rich person less to speed.
    - gambiting 8y ago
      The issue is easily solved by making the fine proportional to your income, as it already is in many European countries. And then the penalty points hurt equally because you will lose your licence regardless of how rich your are once you get enough points.
      - atoav 8y ago
        The revoking of a license also hurts poor people improportionally more. If you depend on your car and need it to get to your job, loosing the ability to drive will: A) make you loose your job B) go in debt to solve your mobility problem C) make you do stupid things like driving without license D) maybe you are lucky and there is cheap public transport or it is close enough for cycling For a rich person A to C are usually not a problem. Just take a taxi.
        gambiting 8y ago
        But if someone is putting others at danger, they shouldn't be treated with mercy just because they are poor. If you drive dangerously why does it matter that you need your car to feed your family? It doesn't and it shouldn't. Yes the consequences are worse for a poor person, but that's like saying that consequences of murder are worse for a poor person - if they go to prison then their family is now at risk because maybe they were the only money making person in the family. Rich person's family is probably going to be fine. But does that mean that poor people should be punished less for murder? Of course this is hyperbole now, but I think the same principle applies.
- Traster 8y ago
  Nice idea in theory, but the fines aren't proportional to your income and in a lot of places people will point out the speed cameras are in a poor area - so whilst theoretically a rich person speeding would be fined too, they'll just never go past the camera.
  - xxs 8y ago
    They are in some countries, which I linked an article about.
- mulmen 8y ago
  That's not how regressive penalties work. Incentives are only equal if the penalty amount is based on ability to pay.
- xxs 8y ago
  Sweden and Finland have fines based on the annual income.[0] [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
  - sschueller 8y ago
    In Switzerland as well but only for highway with more then 25 Km/h over. [1] [1] https://rp-online.de/panorama/ausland/raser-drohen-782000-euro-strafe_aid-12474627 https://rp-online.de/panorama/ausland/raser-drohen-782000-eu...
  - zbrox 8y ago
    You're probably thinking Switzerland, not Sweden. I've been living in Sweden for quite a while, never heard of fines based on income levels. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/rekord-bussgeld-euro-strafe-fuer-schweizer-bleifuss-1.67568 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/rekord-bussgeld-euro-strafe...
  - Steer 8y ago
    You are correct on Finland, you are wrong on Sweden. In fact, Sweden is not even mentioned in your source so not sure where you got it from.
    - xxs 8y ago
      Memory, which might have been failing me as well... The source was just an example
  - gadders 8y ago
    Imagine if they caught Jeff Bezos. They could probably fund their entire police force for several years. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-makes-every-day-hour-minute-2018-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/what-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-m...
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      The nokia boss had to pay 116 000 EUR in 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
gambiting 8y ago
I have very mixed feelings about this. I have been caught by a money-making camera myself(middle of a forest in rural Poland, far away from any houses, and yet it was still a "built-up" area with speed limit of 50km/h, because technically there wasn't a sign ending it after leaving the last town few km back), but on the other hand, there's so many people speeding in cities, frequently doing 100km/h or above on very busy streets, that I am all for building more speed cameras in those places. And then: " solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor." Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.
- sooheon 8y ago
  Let's assume poor and rich are equally likely to speed (except the rich who only move in limos or helis). Flat fees still hurt the poor more, because they cut into living expenses. To be truly egalitarian, these fees should be a % of income and a % of wealth.
  - atoav 8y ago
    Which would be fair, because the goal of these things is to avoid misbehaviour with potentially deadly consequences. There is no reason someone poor should pay 40% of their monthly paycheck while someone rich pays with <1% of their montly paycheck. This is why in a lot of european nations on top of the fines you have a point-based system – if you have three points you get your driving license revoked and you will have it revoked for some time and then you have to do some driving tests again. This actually works quite well in preventing bad behaviour (assuming you have a non corrupt police), but one could argue that it is a much, much worse punishment to the poor again (it can potentially destroy them economically, including the loss of income source etc).
  - ekingr 8y ago
    That is why there is also (in France at least) a system of points on the driving license. Everybody has the same count (12) at the beginning and will lose an equal amount in case of an infraction. If you lose all of them your license is suspended.
_Microft 8y ago
Speed cameras are not toll booths. They do not take money from people indiscriminately but only from the ones that think that they can get away with speeding. (Unfortunately speeding seems almost necessary for e.g. delivery drivers which are in turn not the most well-paid jobs.) Problem is rather how the fines are structured. 50€ might be a disaster for someone living on welfare while it's pocket change for others. If I remember correctly Finland countered this by making traffic fines daily rates of income.
seszett 8y ago
Yes, many people think that but for my part, I have really noticed a big decrease in speeding since these fixed speed cameras have been put into place, in the last 15 years or so. It was not unusual to have people drive 150 km/h or so on the 110 speedways I was taking then, or 110 on the 90 countryside roads. Nowadays it seems like only few people break speed limits by such margins. In Belgium however (where I live now) there are speedcams as well but I notice a lot more speeding. I think the difference is at least partly due to the points permit. French drivers get a total of 12 points and lose at least 2 points from any speeding, while Belgians only get a fine, which probably doesn't give a lot of incentive to people who have enough money to just pay the fine.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Of course not all speed cameras are bad. However in my country there is a lot of speed cameras right before a town ends - that means that people will start slowly speeding up from 50 km/h to 90 km/h and thus the camera will catch them going 60 km/h and give them a pointless fine. Same thing at the beginning - what is the point (except for money) in fining people who didn't brake soon/hard enough so they entered the town going 60 km/h? Why not place these cameras a little bit more inside the town?
- afrisch 8y ago
  > and lose at least 2 points from any speeding (Nitpicking: actually only one point if driving less then 20 km/h above the limit.)
sschueller 8y ago
Speed cameras do work but the fines should be structured in a more fair way. "Rich" people with expensive cars don't care, same goes for parking fines.
tbassetto 8y ago
Meanwhile, most of Scandinavia determines speeding fines based on income.
- Steer 8y ago
  Finland does. Sweden and Denmark do not. Norway I don't know, but suspect not. Source: I live in Sweden and recently got caught by a speed camera in Denmark.
  - lb1lf 8y ago
    Norway does not, either. We do issue fines for drunk driving based on your income, though.
atoav 8y ago
I lived near one of the major crossroads in one of the biggest German cities. The speed camera they put up made a change between waking up 4 times at night because of illegal street races and beeing able to sleep uninterrupted till the lorries start to drive in the early morning. I am not saying that this isn't a tool to generate revenue, but it certainly can make a difference for some of the people living there. However the weirdest thing is, when a street feels like you can drive 80km/h but you have to go 30km/h "just because". People don't like that. You shouldn't just put up signs and speed cameras on a perfectly fine street. You have to alter the street too. Make it narrower, etc. People will then drive slow without problems.
Maakuth 8y ago
Interestingly here in my native Finland, traffic tickets for major violations are progressive. So for a low income driver, major speeding might lose your license for months, but only cost you 150 €. The same infraction would cost a upper-middle income individual 15 000 €. Apparently the biggest speeding ticket written in here has been 170 000 €.
woodpanel 8y ago
As much I hate speed cameras (and as much as I sympathize with the yellow vests), they are usually more than justified. As a car driver you experience much less of the negative side-effects of your reckless driving than the rule-abiding drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and people living next to the streets. Look at speed cameras as police's automation solution for the problem of what to do when road signs aren't working. They are part of an evolution and if evolution has to account for destruction of these cameras then more nuanced models will get their market share (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luc-Z29KUfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luc-Z29KUfU). Or we might end up with more Orwellian ways like autonomous traffic drones or the government having a direct link to your car, monitoring your every move, speed etc. So, yeah, I don't like em but I'm fine with speed cameras.
- chrisper 8y ago
  You are assuming that everyone who gets caught by a camera is driving recklessly
gadders 8y ago
It's not true. They take from everyone, not just the poor.

aerodog 8y ago

In the Bay Area (San Francisco etc.), it's not necessarily "from the poor", but I've been punished in excess of $500 for not coming to a complete stop at a red light (only having slowed down). It's like this everywhere - it's a tool for extortion. And it's terrible.

jedberg 8y ago
Usually you can just ignore those tickets. They can't prove you got the ticket, nor can they prove you were driving. And if they send it to a collection agency, you can demand proof of the debt and they will usually just give up. But yeah, they're installed by 3rd parties and are usually just there to make money.
CalRobert 8y ago
California stops are very dangerous to pedestrians.

D_Guidi 8y ago

the poor simply can respect the rules like the rich, right?

zuppy 8y ago
you got it wrong: the rich will pay, but that amount means nothing to them.
- gambiting 8y ago
  That's where the penalty points come in - you can't pay your way out of losing your licence once you get enough of them. The fine might be meaningless but having to stop driving for 12 months is not.
  - naz 8y ago
    Penalty points also disproportionately affect the poor, who are more likely to depend on their driving license for their income
    - gambiting 8y ago
      So what do you propose? That we punish people who put others in danger less because they are poor? Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor. They aren't any less of a danger just because they have a family that depends on them. Someone they hit won't be any less dead because the driver has 5 children and mountains of debt.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        > Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor. Actually we could argue that it's more likely due to the poor average condition and old age of their cars. A new Mercedes brakes much better than a 20 year old Skoda and usually has auto-braking systems and braking force enhancers. However "going through a city" is very general. There are several actual highways (by law as well as by construction standards) in Prague going through the city where the speed limit (70 km/h) is frequently broken with no possible victims - the exact same road has 130 km/h limit outside the city.
        mnx 8y ago
        That speed limit might be more noise related. So the harm is much different, but the victims are people living nearby.
gambiting 8y ago
I mean, if the speed limit says 50km/h, then you should be doing 50km/h, regardless of the size of your bank account. If someone hits a pedestrian and kills them because they were doing twice the speed limit, "yeah but I'm poor" is not a valid defence.
- mulmen 8y ago
  That's not the point. It costs a poor person more to speed because they have less money. Conversely it costs a rich person less to speed.
  - gambiting 8y ago
    The issue is easily solved by making the fine proportional to your income, as it already is in many European countries. And then the penalty points hurt equally because you will lose your licence regardless of how rich your are once you get enough points.
    - atoav 8y ago
      The revoking of a license also hurts poor people improportionally more. If you depend on your car and need it to get to your job, loosing the ability to drive will: A) make you loose your job B) go in debt to solve your mobility problem C) make you do stupid things like driving without license D) maybe you are lucky and there is cheap public transport or it is close enough for cycling For a rich person A to C are usually not a problem. Just take a taxi.
      - gambiting 8y ago
        But if someone is putting others at danger, they shouldn't be treated with mercy just because they are poor. If you drive dangerously why does it matter that you need your car to feed your family? It doesn't and it shouldn't. Yes the consequences are worse for a poor person, but that's like saying that consequences of murder are worse for a poor person - if they go to prison then their family is now at risk because maybe they were the only money making person in the family. Rich person's family is probably going to be fine. But does that mean that poor people should be punished less for murder? Of course this is hyperbole now, but I think the same principle applies.
Traster 8y ago
Nice idea in theory, but the fines aren't proportional to your income and in a lot of places people will point out the speed cameras are in a poor area - so whilst theoretically a rich person speeding would be fined too, they'll just never go past the camera.
- xxs 8y ago
  They are in some countries, which I linked an article about.
mulmen 8y ago
That's not how regressive penalties work. Incentives are only equal if the penalty amount is based on ability to pay.
xxs 8y ago
Sweden and Finland have fines based on the annual income.[0] [0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
- sschueller 8y ago
  In Switzerland as well but only for highway with more then 25 Km/h over. [1] [1] https://rp-online.de/panorama/ausland/raser-drohen-782000-euro-strafe_aid-12474627 https://rp-online.de/panorama/ausland/raser-drohen-782000-eu...
- zbrox 8y ago
  You're probably thinking Switzerland, not Sweden. I've been living in Sweden for quite a while, never heard of fines based on income levels. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/rekord-bussgeld-euro-strafe-fuer-schweizer-bleifuss-1.67568 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/rekord-bussgeld-euro-strafe...
- Steer 8y ago
  You are correct on Finland, you are wrong on Sweden. In fact, Sweden is not even mentioned in your source so not sure where you got it from.
  - xxs 8y ago
    Memory, which might have been failing me as well... The source was just an example
- gadders 8y ago
  Imagine if they caught Jeff Bezos. They could probably fund their entire police force for several years. https://www.businessinsider.com/what-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-makes-every-day-hour-minute-2018-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/what-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-m...
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    The nokia boss had to pay 116 000 EUR in 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm
hackeraccount 8y ago
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

gambiting 8y ago

I have very mixed feelings about this. I have been caught by a money-making camera myself(middle of a forest in rural Poland, far away from any houses, and yet it was still a "built-up" area with speed limit of 50km/h, because technically there wasn't a sign ending it after leaving the last town few km back), but on the other hand, there's so many people speeding in cities, frequently doing 100km/h or above on very busy streets, that I am all for building more speed cameras in those places. And then: " solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor." Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.

sooheon 8y ago
Let's assume poor and rich are equally likely to speed (except the rich who only move in limos or helis). Flat fees still hurt the poor more, because they cut into living expenses. To be truly egalitarian, these fees should be a % of income and a % of wealth.
- atoav 8y ago
  Which would be fair, because the goal of these things is to avoid misbehaviour with potentially deadly consequences. There is no reason someone poor should pay 40% of their monthly paycheck while someone rich pays with <1% of their montly paycheck. This is why in a lot of european nations on top of the fines you have a point-based system – if you have three points you get your driving license revoked and you will have it revoked for some time and then you have to do some driving tests again. This actually works quite well in preventing bad behaviour (assuming you have a non corrupt police), but one could argue that it is a much, much worse punishment to the poor again (it can potentially destroy them economically, including the loss of income source etc).
- ekingr 8y ago
  That is why there is also (in France at least) a system of points on the driving license. Everybody has the same count (12) at the beginning and will lose an equal amount in case of an infraction. If you lose all of them your license is suspended.

_Microft 8y ago

Speed cameras are not toll booths. They do not take money from people indiscriminately but only from the ones that think that they can get away with speeding. (Unfortunately speeding seems almost necessary for e.g. delivery drivers which are in turn not the most well-paid jobs.) Problem is rather how the fines are structured. 50€ might be a disaster for someone living on welfare while it's pocket change for others. If I remember correctly Finland countered this by making traffic fines daily rates of income.

seszett 8y ago

Yes, many people think that but for my part, I have really noticed a big decrease in speeding since these fixed speed cameras have been put into place, in the last 15 years or so. It was not unusual to have people drive 150 km/h or so on the 110 speedways I was taking then, or 110 on the 90 countryside roads. Nowadays it seems like only few people break speed limits by such margins. In Belgium however (where I live now) there are speedcams as well but I notice a lot more speeding. I think the difference is at least partly due to the points permit. French drivers get a total of 12 points and lose at least 2 points from any speeding, while Belgians only get a fine, which probably doesn't give a lot of incentive to people who have enough money to just pay the fine.

TomMarius 8y ago
Of course not all speed cameras are bad. However in my country there is a lot of speed cameras right before a town ends - that means that people will start slowly speeding up from 50 km/h to 90 km/h and thus the camera will catch them going 60 km/h and give them a pointless fine. Same thing at the beginning - what is the point (except for money) in fining people who didn't brake soon/hard enough so they entered the town going 60 km/h? Why not place these cameras a little bit more inside the town?
afrisch 8y ago
> and lose at least 2 points from any speeding (Nitpicking: actually only one point if driving less then 20 km/h above the limit.)

sschueller 8y ago

Speed cameras do work but the fines should be structured in a more fair way. "Rich" people with expensive cars don't care, same goes for parking fines.

tbassetto 8y ago

Meanwhile, most of Scandinavia determines speeding fines based on income.

Steer 8y ago
Finland does. Sweden and Denmark do not. Norway I don't know, but suspect not. Source: I live in Sweden and recently got caught by a speed camera in Denmark.
- lb1lf 8y ago
  Norway does not, either. We do issue fines for drunk driving based on your income, though.

atoav 8y ago

I lived near one of the major crossroads in one of the biggest German cities. The speed camera they put up made a change between waking up 4 times at night because of illegal street races and beeing able to sleep uninterrupted till the lorries start to drive in the early morning. I am not saying that this isn't a tool to generate revenue, but it certainly can make a difference for some of the people living there. However the weirdest thing is, when a street feels like you can drive 80km/h but you have to go 30km/h "just because". People don't like that. You shouldn't just put up signs and speed cameras on a perfectly fine street. You have to alter the street too. Make it narrower, etc. People will then drive slow without problems.

Maakuth 8y ago

Interestingly here in my native Finland, traffic tickets for major violations are progressive. So for a low income driver, major speeding might lose your license for months, but only cost you 150 €. The same infraction would cost a upper-middle income individual 15 000 €. Apparently the biggest speeding ticket written in here has been 170 000 €.

woodpanel 8y ago

As much I hate speed cameras (and as much as I sympathize with the yellow vests), they are usually more than justified. As a car driver you experience much less of the negative side-effects of your reckless driving than the rule-abiding drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and people living next to the streets. Look at speed cameras as police's automation solution for the problem of what to do when road signs aren't working. They are part of an evolution and if evolution has to account for destruction of these cameras then more nuanced models will get their market share (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luc-Z29KUfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luc-Z29KUfU). Or we might end up with more Orwellian ways like autonomous traffic drones or the government having a direct link to your car, monitoring your every move, speed etc. So, yeah, I don't like em but I'm fine with speed cameras.

chrisper 8y ago
You are assuming that everyone who gets caught by a camera is driving recklessly

gadders 8y ago

It's not true. They take from everyone, not just the poor.