12 ms·

I once saw speed cameras as "un-sporting" until travelling elsewhere in the world where they are commonplace. In those countries, it seems like everyone just d

by ISL 6y ago

I once saw speed cameras as "un-sporting" until travelling elsewhere in the world where they are commonplace. In those countries, it seems like everyone just drives the speed limit. If the point of speed enforcement is to, you know, ensure that everyone is going the speed limit or slower, they're awesome. Norway's system of timed speed cameras are particularly wonderful -- they simply photograph a car and then photograph it again many kilometers later. If you get there too soon, then at some point, you must have been speeding. These systems are safer for police and drivers as there are no traffic stops for speeding. Yes, the bill goes to the car owner, but if you're loaning your car out to someone who speeds, at least some of the culpability falls on you. Can speed cameras be used as a revenue source? Yes. It is reasonable to place requirements on the determination of speed-limits and camera-locations to prevent abuse. Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed.

XorNot 6y ago
I agree speed camera are necessary but "time of travel" speed cameras are absolutely violating the intent of the law, which is to have people drive safely. Part of driving safely is that you may need to speed up to avoid a situation, or change lanes safely or what have you - a time of travel camera (in the way they get implemented which is identical to single-point speed cameras AFAIK) is essentially just a random ticket generating machine. If we're going to use these things, let's just require them to publish the license plate and time online, so our phone's can download the number and tell us if we're currently going to get ticketed going past them. Because tickets aren't just monetary - at least in Australia, license demerit points mean you eventually lose your license, thus your ability to drive and very likely your job as a result.
- ISL 6y ago
  Driving slightly under the speed limit (and perhaps bumping existing speed limits slightly upward before increasing the efficiency of enforcement) should address most of those concerns.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  The speed limit is an upper bound. If you cannot safely pass someone without speeding, slowing down is generally an option too. If you're speeding to escape a homicidal maniac, challenge the ticket later.
  - loeg 6y ago
    In at least parts of the US, it is not an upper bound. You can exceed the posted limit to pass.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Where in the US?
      - loeg 6y ago
        Washington, for example. RCW 46.61.425: > a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425 This random internet webpage claims that Idaho, Wyoming, and Minnesota have something similar: https://blog.directauto.com/driving-laws/going-over-speed-limit-when-passing/ https://blog.directauto.com/driving-laws/going-over-speed-li... .
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        That’s cool, I didn’t know that!
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > You can exceed the posted limit to pass. If you're doing this consistently, over several kilometers, you're just speeding.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > Because tickets aren't just monetary And the only monetary aspect is not the fine, it is the also the increased insurance premiums. The latter can be much more punishing than the former.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    I didn't know this was a thing in the US until a few months ago - apparently the local police notify insurance companies (somehow) of speeding violations and thus give the insurance reason to increase your premiums.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      If the goal is to charge people who take actions that result in higher probability of losses, then it makes sense. Otherwise, drivers that have less probability to cause losses are subsidizing those that do. Also, in the US as far as I know, you can “fight” the ticket in court and pay the local government more to reduce the level of speeding ticket and hence points you get, so that the insurance company doesn’t see any speeding (or sees less severe speeding).
      - loeg 6y ago
        > If the goal is to charge people who take actions that result in higher probability of losses, then it makes sense. Otherwise, drivers that have less probability to cause losses are subsidizing those that do. It's a noisy and weak signal.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        It it was not a good signal, then a competing auto insurance company would advertise that it does not penalize speeding drivers and win more business.
        loeg 6y ago
        This is a false dichotomy. It can be noisy and weak without being a competitive disadvantage for the insurance business.
- beagle3 6y ago
  In most countries that don’t try to just fill coffers through speeding tickets, enforcement happens at 10% or so above legal speed limit. If the two cameras are more than 1km apart, that makes your point moot.
- gpm 6y ago
  Time of travel are the only ones respecting the intent of a law? Systems that measure your instantaneous speed will ding you for speeding up to avoid (or reduce the probability of) a collision. Time of travel as defined in GP only dings you if your average speed over many km exceeds the speed limit, a few temporary bursts of speed won't change your average speed significantly.
- megablast 6y ago
  What a load of rubbish. Driving fast to overtake will not make a significant difference, unless you are one of those assholewz weaving between cars constantly overtaking. It is ridiculous how blaze most roads users take speeding. And yes, most countries have a point system.
- yongjik 6y ago
  For thought experiment, assume a five-mile stretch of road with 60mph limit, and "time of travel" ticket kicking in at 65mph. It takes 5 minutes to drive legally, and if you take less than 4:37 then you get the ticket. Assume you drive at 60mph and then you suddenly have to "speed up" to 80mph to avoid a situation. How long can you drive at 80mph before you're ticketed? 69 seconds. If you're driving for 69 seconds at 20mph above limit then you're not "avoiding a situation". You are speeding.
- scott_w 6y ago
  There are exactly 0 situations that require you to break the speed limit to become “safe.” The UK Highway Code and driving lessons are very explicit in how you respond to emergencies and “speed up” is not on the list.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    There can be but only after you have already been inattentive or negligent leading up to the situation. My teen is less than a year into his license. The other night he was driving us in an unfamiliar area and missed a sign indicating that the 3 lanes were merging into 2. He found himself at the merge point completely blocking a car trying to merge. Yes, the merging vehicle is obligated to yield but speeding up for a few seconds with open road in front of him was the safer move than braking hard or maintaining speed and hoping the merging vehicle yielded appropriately before it ran out of pavement.
    - scott_w 6y ago
      So either he slows down to aid the overtake or it’s not possible in time and the overtaking vehicle slows down to merge behind. Appreciate these things are tough when you’re still new, nervous in an unfamiliar area, etc. but that’s the time you go back to basics on your driving to maximise safety.
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    There are very rare situations when speeding saves you. One example is someone going into your lane and driving into you for a head on collision. Assuming there is space to swerve you should also accelerate to escape faster. That being said it's so extremely rare there is no point debating those cases. If speeding was physically not possible it would be a better and safer world.
    - scott_w 6y ago
      Absolutely not. In such a situation, you don’t have time to look to your side to check it’s empty. The safest thing is to slam on your brakes and hope they do the same. If you’re suggesting someone is intent on killing you by speeding vehicle, then yes this pretty much never happens between cars.
Scoundreller 6y ago
> but if you're loaning your car out to someone who speeds, at least some of the culpability falls on you. Not in Germany it doesn’t. Only the actual driver can be found guilty of speeding, even by speed-camera. I understand they’ll take pictures of the front of the vehicle and check against who’s lives at the registered address. Not sure if it’s an infraction for the registered owner to refuse to identify the likely driver. Source: my German car rental company didn’t auto-pay anything, they forwarded me a “ticket” from the police department asking me to pay 20 EUR to go away or they’ll try to identify the actual driver and try to charge them a higher fine. While this is more work, I think it’s reasonable for us to expect law enforcement to identify the guilty and not just convict someone that’s easy to blame.
- TomVDB 6y ago
  Even better: in Germany, the cameras black out the passenger's side of the car automatically for privacy reasons, so that only the driver is identified. This was a problem in 2008 when a car with steering wheel on the right systematically got caught speeding. The driver knew full well what was going on an placed a muppet in the passeger's seat. The picture is fantastic: https://gizmodo.com/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-driving-police-craz-5069422 https://gizmodo.com/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-drivi...
  - xxpor 6y ago
    In Washington State they go one step further: cameras can only take pictures from the rear. They're not allowed to actually take a picture of the driver.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      So it becomes a civil matter between the state and the vehicle I assume? Registered owner automatically becomes the liable party?
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        Yes (same in Ontario, Canada generally). The owner gets the civil fine, but there are no demerit points put on anyone's license. If one is pulled over for speeding (or anything else), then the officer can identify the driver and they get points as well. I think points are used as an (dis)incentive for people who would be otherwise be willing to just cut a cheque. Too many points and you start getting insurance problems. * https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points Seems to be somewhat common in a few jurisdictions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)
chrismcb 6y ago
But to what end? Ignoring the privacy aspect, the point should not be too ensure everyone goes the does limit or slower. The point should be that people are traveling at a reasonable and safe speed. Driving fast doesn't necessarily mean unsafe. You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. So the speed cameras make it more likely that people will be under the speed limit. But are the roads safer?
- ISL 6y ago
  > You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. If so (and there is no inclement weather), then the speed limit is too high.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Road and driving conditions can change. Snow; rain: darkness; traffic. Speed limits are intended to an upper bound, not a target.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  > Driving fast doesn't necessarily mean unsafe. In all studies I read or heard about, speed is a huge factor for increasing injuries and deaths. > You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. Then you are driving too fast according to the law. At least in France or Norway. > So the speed cameras make it more likely that people will be under the speed limit. But are the roads safer? Yes. The numbers talk for themselves whenever a new speed camera is installed in a road.
  - overscore 6y ago
    Do the numbers speak for themselves? In Ireland, at least, speed cameras are generally placed at compliance black spots, not accident black spots. Speed cameras on extremely safe motorways here have never been shown to reduce accidents, only to reduce speeding.
    - 6y ago
ransom1538 6y ago
Take it another level. Every car should have a chip. Once you are in a speed limit - your car can't go faster. Oh wait, this wont generate revenue - so it wont work. Never mind.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Almost all cars can be set to respect a speed limit already; I do that when I drive on highways to make sure I don’t accidentally go over (which is easy to do especially when others around me do it). Outside of the US (and perhaps a few other places, but not many), speeding tickets are not designed to be a revenue source. (They do produce revenue, of course - but are not optimized or planned for that purpose)
- leetcrew 6y ago
  better yet, we ought to just put chips in people's brains. make illicit thoughts impossible.
  - AgentME 6y ago
    It's a bad analogy because it's hard to imagine any kinds of thoughts/behaviors that we're absolutely sure we want to prevent. (Maybe some amount of nonviolent mischief is good for humanity, maybe the impulse for violent retribution is necessary when justice systems are flawed, maybe these kinds of thoughts are generally not acted on and actually make people more self-reflective, etc.) But it's at least a bit harder to come up with reasons that speed limits should be exceedable on public roads and a bit easier to think up solutions. Medical emergencies are one possible case, but having an override that records that the override happened and that you'll have to give a good reason for doing is a possible solution. Maybe there's sudden traffic situations where you have to speed up to avoid a crash, and the system could be made to allow limited bursts of speed.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  EU has been making some noises about doing exactly this. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288592-eu-wants-speed-governors-data-recorders-in-cars-for-2022 https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288592-eu-wants-speed-go...
ehnto 6y ago
My state in Australia have heavy, heavy fines, even compared to the rest of Aus. It doesn't reduce the amount of poor driving but speeding at least is unambiguous. There is no grey area. If the speed limit is 60kmph then you will get booked for exceeding it by 5kmph, and the only reason you get that 5kmph leeway is to account for camera calibration and some grace for speedometer calibration. They would ping you at 61kmph if they could We also have demerit points, so if you get caught speeding say three times in a row you will most likely have ran out of points on your license and automatically get a 3 to 6 month license suspension. Most of this is automated, so you may find out you were suspended by getting pulled over before the letter arrives. It's all very strict.
- sjwright 6y ago
  In Victoria they’ll ping you for going 62 km/h in a 60 zone.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    It's almost as if the speed limit is the speed limit!
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Are you sure? I got a ticket in Victoria 2 years ago from an standalone camera and it explicitly included a few % grace. The sample image includes it too: https://online.fines.vic.gov.au/Assets/Images/refNo-mail.jpg https://online.fines.vic.gov.au/Assets/Images/refNo-mail.jpg > "The alleged speed is lower than the detected speed to allow for tolerance in detection equipment"
  - ehnto 6y ago
    The fines are at least a bit more reasonable there. Do you find them reasonable or are they different for locals?
  - intellirogue 6y ago
    In NZ, which generally copy-pastes VIC's traffic laws, the tolerance is only applied to automated systems like speed cameras. A cop can ticket you in-person when you're 1km/h over.
praveenperera 6y ago
No thanks.
- guiriduro 6y ago
  Don't worry - in Brexit Britain the tailbacks will be so long you'll struggle to find a road you can break the speed limit on. And those you can all have bends on them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
spoonjim 6y ago
"un-sporting"? It's not a game. It's about reducing the most common cause of preventable death. The harms to privacy or "freedom" or whatnot are more defensible here than pretty much anywhere else.
- iso947 6y ago
  In the U.K. excess speed is the 10th most common cause of accidents, way below “driver didn’t look properly”, which was 9 times as common. As far as deaths go, the most common contributory causes are loss of control and failure to look properly. Exceeding speed limit was a cause in just 16% of deaths. https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-road-accidents-in-britain https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-roa... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448037/road-fatalities-2013-data.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - 7952 6y ago
    I wonder if speeding is correlated with those other causes of accidents. It may not always be the cause of accidents but is evidence of bad judgement and easy to detect. In an ideal world we could also catch people who fail to check their blind spot, or get distracted automatically. Also, it does make the environment less hospitable for pedestrians and cyclists which is a good enough reason alone.
    - alvah 6y ago
      "(exceeding the one-size-fits all speed limit) is evidence of bad judgement" This is not as self-evident as you assert. Do you have anything to back up your claim?
      - 7952 6y ago
        Judgement is subjective. I would argue that the safest way to drive is conservatively and with caution. And that your own emotions, time constraints, and judgement about safety are not sufficiently compelling to override that. Of course as a society we are forced to strike a balance between safety and utility. Where you strike that balance is political and not entirely objective.
dazc 6y ago
'Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed.' Seems odd to me that Govt's struggle to raise revenue via normal taxes when they have a large pool of stupid people they could raise extra money from? Maybe making a regualr speeding fine a life changing amount rather than the negligable sum it is now would improve people's behaviour, raise some much needed revenue and save a few lives too?
- forest_dweller 6y ago
  > Maybe making a regualr speeding fine a life changing amount rather than the negligable sum it is now would improve people's behaviour, raise some much needed revenue and save a few lives too The fine is negligible if you are well off. It isn't if you aren't. If you get points (for SP-30), the increase in insurance is about £300-400. So the actual cost of the fine is closer to £400-500 which is the rent for the month. There has already been talk of making the fine be adjusted to how much you earn.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    Accumulating enough points results in suspension of your licence, it's not only about insurance costs.
    - forest_dweller 6y ago
      Not always. There are quite a few drivers with more than 12 points on the road. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 I personally am aware of many people that were speeding at well over 100mph. When they went to the majestrate they were let off with 6 points. People get away with things that should get them a suspension all the time.
- DanBC 6y ago
  > Seems odd to me that Govt's struggle to raise revenue via normal taxes when they have a large pool of stupid people they could raise extra money from? Extracting money from drivers was one of the causes of community tension in Fergusson. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm > Are excessive traffic fines and debtors' jails fuelling community tensions in suburban Missouri? Claire Bolderson reports on a network of ninety separate cities in St Louis County, most of which have their own courts and police forces. Critics say that their size makes them financially unviable and allege that some of them boost their incomes by fining their own citizens and locking them up when they can't pay.
fergie 6y ago
Its worth noting that Norway has an extremely low traffic fatality rate, which is especially remarkable considering the adverse winter driving conditions and remoteness of many roads. (https://norwaytoday.info/news/norway-registers-lowest-number-of-traffic-related-deaths-in-decades/ https://norwaytoday.info/news/norway-registers-lowest-number...)
Closi 6y ago
I’ll assume you aren’t in the U.K. (which this article is about), because the U.K. system is almost exactly as you describe! > Norway's system of timed speed cameras are particularly wonderful -- they simply photograph a car and then photograph it again many kilometers later. If you get there too soon, then at some point, you must have been speeding. Uk has a combination of: * Average speed cameras (as per the Norway example) * Variable speed cameras (where the speed limit varies depending on the conditions of the road and congestion) * Fixed speed cameras (traditional speed cameras dug in next to a road) * Mobile speed cameras (as per the bbc article, with a purpose to make sure the position changes each day so locals don’t know where the cameras are). > These systems are safer for police and drivers as there are no traffic stops for speeding. Traffic stops in the U.K. are very rare, and even mobile cameras just send the documentation to your registered address with no stop. A stop would only be done in the U.K. if there was a belief that the driving was putting others at immediate risk (eg appears drunk).
- IshKebab 6y ago
  Average speed cameras are very rare outside roadworks though.
  - coob 6y ago
    They're really not, there's 2000 of them in the UK: https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2020/09/25/uk-has-more-speed-cameras-than-the-usa https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2020/09...
    - 7952 6y ago
      That is approximately one for every 200km of road. Hardly seems like a lot.
      - kitd 6y ago
        They're focussed on the heavily used sections though, ie where they are more likely to be encountered. By that measure (kms driven), they're much more common.
carlhjerpe 6y ago
We do not have average speed cameras in Sweden and I hope we never will. The privacy implications of taking a photograph of everyone, process "who they are" (reg plate, generally driven by family member) is horrifying.
- iso947 6y ago
  You don’t have ring doorbells?
  - carlhjerpe 6y ago
    If you're refering to doorbells with a camera facing the outside then no, they're very uncommon. There's very strict rules about how you're legally allowed to point a fixed installation camera in Sweden, you're not allowed to have a fixed installation that'll record anything that isn't your property. Not even the corner of the pavement. All in all, Swedes don't want cameras pointing all over, you have to put up signs if there are cameras and usually you should apply for a permit before installing cameras. Inside your house you're free to record as you like though. https://bit.ly/37dMVx2 https://bit.ly/37dMVx2 <- Translated law regarding cameras.
    - iso947 6y ago
      Similar restrictions in the U.K. with signs. CCTV signs are usually up for commercial companies, but residential wise it isn’t enforced, and from the local Facebook group people seem shocked at the very idea recording te street and posting pictures of troublemakers is illegal. I was disappointed by the number of people with them when I went door knocking for the election last year. The police actually advised me to get one for my grandmother who has been suffering from door to door scammers.
- krapp 6y ago
  What privacy implications? The government already knows who you are, they processed your vehicle registration and issued that license plate specifically to make your vehicle publicly identifiable. Are you also terrified that just anyone can read your house numbers or the address on your mailbox?
m463 6y ago
A friend of mine was traveling across france on a motorcycle (this was decades ago) and one day had to get home to england quite quickly. So he got on the tollway and went quickly. But apparently they checked entrance and exit times on the tickets and would calculate your speed, so he "lost" his ticket and paid the max cost to be safe. I guess it worked.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  In France they don't do that. At least not yet. There are a lot of automatic speed radars (at a single point), and a bit fewer average speed radars but they work over a few km at most (and don't interact with the toll).
  - m463 6y ago
    He told me they check the entrance time on the ticket and when you get off at the exit they know approximately how long it should take you. And they would wave you off to the side if you made it say 120 miles in an hour instead of two. This was a long time ago.
jsinai 6y ago
> I once saw speed cameras as “un-sporting”. With no attack on the parent, this reminds me of the general driving attitude of South Africa where I am from. A combination of lack of road enforcement and public mistrust in the police have created an environment where the rule of law on the road, designed to protect lives, is treated merely as suggestions or guidelines, often ignored. It’s extremely common to see drivers speeding from 10 to even 30 km/h above the speed limit, even on urban roads. Sometimes these drivers are so confident in their right (freedom?) that they’ll flash their lights at you from behind if you’re going too slow, even if you are a good citizen driving at the speed limit. And speeding is only one half of it... When I came to Europe for the first time it was amazing to see how almost everyone respects the road rules (I know this isn’t the case everywhere) and it generally makes me feel much safer on the roads. Although it’s still scary as hell cycling in some cities without protected cycle lanes.
- toyg 6y ago
  Lol, in SA it’s almost funny, because the crappiest the car, the fastest it will rocket through the countryside. Insane speeds, and I’m Italian.
- slumdev 6y ago
  It's the same way in the United States. 40 km/h above the limit is the norm on our interstate highways. Perhaps only 20 km/h on smaller streets.
  - chiph 6y ago
    Depends on the state & locality. Places like Virginia where having a radar detector is illegal (and the police have detector-detectors) and going 20mph over (32kph) or faster than 80mph (128kph)[0], gets you charged with reckless driving which is a criminal offense punishable by time in jail. So only the foolhardy speed there. In next-door North Carolina, going 9mph over (14kph) will only get you insurance points not license points (the state tracks them separately) so many drivers limit themselves to that on the interstates, and sometimes 5mph over (8kph) inside city limits. [0] Highway SH-130 outside Austin Texas has the fastest speed limit in the US at 85mph (136kph). So what is safe & legal there can get you placed in handcuffs in Virginia.
imtringued 6y ago
> Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed. I got a 100€ fine for speeding on a 130km/h. My crime? I was driving 100km/h instead of the supposed speed limit of 80km/h. Every day I drive down that section I slow down to 80km/h while everyone else rightfully drives at almost twice the speed at 130km/h or even faster without getting a ticket. I don't think this is safe. It's also not good for me psychologically. It means the rules are stupid and arbitrary and not worth trusting.
dabbledash 6y ago
>Beyond that, if you don’t want to get a fine, don’t speed My concern with this kind of thing is less about the speed limit and more that I believe people should be able to move around in public without being identified and tracked by the police. It’s one thing if the police have to observe something suspicious and then take the time to stop you for ID to find out who you are. It’s another if they can track and identify everyone all the time passively.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > I believe people should be able to move around in public without being identified and tracked by the police. You can. Just not in a car, because cars have license plates so not only can police identify you, anyone who can lookup a plate can. It’s non-anonymous almost by definition. Where I live the registry is public so if I want I can ask for the owner of a license plate from the relevant authority.
  - dabbledash 6y ago
    But I think one of the things we see with technology and privacy is that there’s a real difference between things that you can do, but they require manual human action and are therefor costly, and things that are done effortlessly and constantly. We’ve always had license plates, but we haven’t always had a government record of where every car has travelled. We will soon, I’m sure. And right now it’s true you can mostly walk or bike around in public without being tracked, but that’s just until we get the facial recognition really going. Then the argument will be that you were always showing your face in public and it was always possible that someone would recognize you so this is no different. But of course it will be different. And now it’s possible, if you have a conversation in a cafe, that someone will overhear you. But if every conversation were being recorded, transcribed, and transmitted to the authorities, that wouldn’t be the same thing at all.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      We get this problem all the time. The registry of cars was “public” so anyone could call and ask for the details or a car (e.g whether it had debt or parking fines or whether the guy trying to sell it was actually the owner). Then with the arrival of the internet, should this information be available at everyone’s fingertips? Should it be possible to web search it or was the phone call a good “rate limiter” and prevented abuse? It was actually decided it was, and it’s now call/text only. The discussion about everything being logged is why I like the GDPR. It’s the long term mass gathering of data that should be addressed.
noir_lord 6y ago
There are a fair few of those average speed camera setups near me and I love them, everyone just sits at the speed limit - far more effective than the trap cameras. Also my GPS (via bluetooth headphones) tells me when I'm entering and leaving a zone (not that I speed).
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> the bill goes to the car owner Presumably this doesn't apply with a 'formal' rental arrangement?
fudged71 6y ago
I am a huge fan of replacing instantaneous speed cameras with average speed cameras. Our city has the most dangerous road in Canada, speeding is the norm not the exception, and I haven’t seen any debate about average speed cameras
- honkdaddy 6y ago
  I'm curious - which road is that? In Brampton maybe?
  - fudged71 6y ago
    I may be wrong, I can't find a source. It's Deerfoot Trail in Calgary.
- tim333 6y ago
  They work quite well from the safety point of view though they are a bit tedious and annoying from the driving point of view.
Lammy 6y ago
Sounds like “needing” to check speed is a great justification for building a surveillance system.
bsd44 6y ago
"Norway's system of timed speed cameras are particularly wonderful" It isn't wonderful at all. UK has average speed cameras as well and they are horrible. Every time I drive in average speed zones I spend more time looking down because 1) I don't want to go 5mi over the speed limit because I will get fined otherwise 2) I don't want to go 5mi below the speed limit because then drivers behind me have to break one by one which eventually causes a traffic jam 3) I can't overtake a lorry going 65 because it would take me too long and I might miss my exit, which then makes anxious because I have to extend my commute time if I get stuck behind one 4) I can't safely let people merge onto the motorway because if I speed up or slow down then 1) or 2) happen 5) I can't calculate my average speed and to avoid 1) and 2) I have to keep looking down not paying much attention to what's going on around me This only works on roads with little traffic, like in Scotland, where you can set cruise control and drive for miles. It doesn't work in Cambridge where AADT is ten times higher. "These systems are safer for police and drivers as there are no traffic stops for speeding." You are comparing average speed cameras to traffic stops, rather than stationary speed traps... "Can speed cameras be used as a revenue source? Yes." No because the primary reason for speed cameras is ensuring road safety, not generating revenue in which case you are encouraging installing speed cameras where they are not required. Speed cameras are not as safe you believe they are, otherwise they would be installed every 100 metres. "Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed." That's like saying "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy" using the same "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time" principle, which is flawed. There are plenty of situations where you would want to occasionally speed 10% over the speed limit, but that's not equal to speeding 100% over the speed limit for a very long time. Both will get you a fine. It's not as simple as black or white.

by ISL 6y ago

XorNot 6y ago

I agree speed camera are necessary but "time of travel" speed cameras are absolutely violating the intent of the law, which is to have people drive safely. Part of driving safely is that you may need to speed up to avoid a situation, or change lanes safely or what have you - a time of travel camera (in the way they get implemented which is identical to single-point speed cameras AFAIK) is essentially just a random ticket generating machine. If we're going to use these things, let's just require them to publish the license plate and time online, so our phone's can download the number and tell us if we're currently going to get ticketed going past them. Because tickets aren't just monetary - at least in Australia, license demerit points mean you eventually lose your license, thus your ability to drive and very likely your job as a result.

ISL 6y ago
Driving slightly under the speed limit (and perhaps bumping existing speed limits slightly upward before increasing the efficiency of enforcement) should address most of those concerns.
ceejayoz 6y ago
The speed limit is an upper bound. If you cannot safely pass someone without speeding, slowing down is generally an option too. If you're speeding to escape a homicidal maniac, challenge the ticket later.
- loeg 6y ago
  In at least parts of the US, it is not an upper bound. You can exceed the posted limit to pass.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Where in the US?
    - loeg 6y ago
      Washington, for example. RCW 46.61.425: > a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425 This random internet webpage claims that Idaho, Wyoming, and Minnesota have something similar: https://blog.directauto.com/driving-laws/going-over-speed-limit-when-passing/ https://blog.directauto.com/driving-laws/going-over-speed-li... .
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        That’s cool, I didn’t know that!
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > You can exceed the posted limit to pass. If you're doing this consistently, over several kilometers, you're just speeding.
smnrchrds 6y ago
> Because tickets aren't just monetary And the only monetary aspect is not the fine, it is the also the increased insurance premiums. The latter can be much more punishing than the former.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I didn't know this was a thing in the US until a few months ago - apparently the local police notify insurance companies (somehow) of speeding violations and thus give the insurance reason to increase your premiums.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    If the goal is to charge people who take actions that result in higher probability of losses, then it makes sense. Otherwise, drivers that have less probability to cause losses are subsidizing those that do. Also, in the US as far as I know, you can “fight” the ticket in court and pay the local government more to reduce the level of speeding ticket and hence points you get, so that the insurance company doesn’t see any speeding (or sees less severe speeding).
    - loeg 6y ago
      > If the goal is to charge people who take actions that result in higher probability of losses, then it makes sense. Otherwise, drivers that have less probability to cause losses are subsidizing those that do. It's a noisy and weak signal.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        It it was not a good signal, then a competing auto insurance company would advertise that it does not penalize speeding drivers and win more business.
        loeg 6y ago
        This is a false dichotomy. It can be noisy and weak without being a competitive disadvantage for the insurance business.
beagle3 6y ago
In most countries that don’t try to just fill coffers through speeding tickets, enforcement happens at 10% or so above legal speed limit. If the two cameras are more than 1km apart, that makes your point moot.
gpm 6y ago
Time of travel are the only ones respecting the intent of a law? Systems that measure your instantaneous speed will ding you for speeding up to avoid (or reduce the probability of) a collision. Time of travel as defined in GP only dings you if your average speed over many km exceeds the speed limit, a few temporary bursts of speed won't change your average speed significantly.
megablast 6y ago
What a load of rubbish. Driving fast to overtake will not make a significant difference, unless you are one of those assholewz weaving between cars constantly overtaking. It is ridiculous how blaze most roads users take speeding. And yes, most countries have a point system.
yongjik 6y ago
For thought experiment, assume a five-mile stretch of road with 60mph limit, and "time of travel" ticket kicking in at 65mph. It takes 5 minutes to drive legally, and if you take less than 4:37 then you get the ticket. Assume you drive at 60mph and then you suddenly have to "speed up" to 80mph to avoid a situation. How long can you drive at 80mph before you're ticketed? 69 seconds. If you're driving for 69 seconds at 20mph above limit then you're not "avoiding a situation". You are speeding.
scott_w 6y ago
There are exactly 0 situations that require you to break the speed limit to become “safe.” The UK Highway Code and driving lessons are very explicit in how you respond to emergencies and “speed up” is not on the list.
- brewdad 6y ago
  There can be but only after you have already been inattentive or negligent leading up to the situation. My teen is less than a year into his license. The other night he was driving us in an unfamiliar area and missed a sign indicating that the 3 lanes were merging into 2. He found himself at the merge point completely blocking a car trying to merge. Yes, the merging vehicle is obligated to yield but speeding up for a few seconds with open road in front of him was the safer move than braking hard or maintaining speed and hoping the merging vehicle yielded appropriately before it ran out of pavement.
  - scott_w 6y ago
    So either he slows down to aid the overtake or it’s not possible in time and the overtaking vehicle slows down to merge behind. Appreciate these things are tough when you’re still new, nervous in an unfamiliar area, etc. but that’s the time you go back to basics on your driving to maximise safety.
- bluecalm 6y ago
  There are very rare situations when speeding saves you. One example is someone going into your lane and driving into you for a head on collision. Assuming there is space to swerve you should also accelerate to escape faster. That being said it's so extremely rare there is no point debating those cases. If speeding was physically not possible it would be a better and safer world.
  - scott_w 6y ago
    Absolutely not. In such a situation, you don’t have time to look to your side to check it’s empty. The safest thing is to slam on your brakes and hope they do the same. If you’re suggesting someone is intent on killing you by speeding vehicle, then yes this pretty much never happens between cars.

Scoundreller 6y ago

> but if you're loaning your car out to someone who speeds, at least some of the culpability falls on you. Not in Germany it doesn’t. Only the actual driver can be found guilty of speeding, even by speed-camera. I understand they’ll take pictures of the front of the vehicle and check against who’s lives at the registered address. Not sure if it’s an infraction for the registered owner to refuse to identify the likely driver. Source: my German car rental company didn’t auto-pay anything, they forwarded me a “ticket” from the police department asking me to pay 20 EUR to go away or they’ll try to identify the actual driver and try to charge them a higher fine. While this is more work, I think it’s reasonable for us to expect law enforcement to identify the guilty and not just convict someone that’s easy to blame.

TomVDB 6y ago
Even better: in Germany, the cameras black out the passenger's side of the car automatically for privacy reasons, so that only the driver is identified. This was a problem in 2008 when a car with steering wheel on the right systematically got caught speeding. The driver knew full well what was going on an placed a muppet in the passeger's seat. The picture is fantastic: https://gizmodo.com/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-driving-police-craz-5069422 https://gizmodo.com/the-muppets-animal-caught-speeding-drivi...
- xxpor 6y ago
  In Washington State they go one step further: cameras can only take pictures from the rear. They're not allowed to actually take a picture of the driver.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    So it becomes a civil matter between the state and the vehicle I assume? Registered owner automatically becomes the liable party?
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      Yes (same in Ontario, Canada generally). The owner gets the civil fine, but there are no demerit points put on anyone's license. If one is pulled over for speeding (or anything else), then the officer can identify the driver and they get points as well. I think points are used as an (dis)incentive for people who would be otherwise be willing to just cut a cheque. Too many points and you start getting insurance problems. * https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points https://www.ontario.ca/page/understanding-demerit-points Seems to be somewhat common in a few jurisdictions: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)

chrismcb 6y ago

But to what end? Ignoring the privacy aspect, the point should not be too ensure everyone goes the does limit or slower. The point should be that people are traveling at a reasonable and safe speed. Driving fast doesn't necessarily mean unsafe. You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. So the speed cameras make it more likely that people will be under the speed limit. But are the roads safer?

ISL 6y ago
> You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. If so (and there is no inclement weather), then the speed limit is too high.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Road and driving conditions can change. Snow; rain: darkness; traffic. Speed limits are intended to an upper bound, not a target.
speedgoose 6y ago
> Driving fast doesn't necessarily mean unsafe. In all studies I read or heard about, speed is a huge factor for increasing injuries and deaths. > You can be driving the speed limit and be going at an unsafe speed. Then you are driving too fast according to the law. At least in France or Norway. > So the speed cameras make it more likely that people will be under the speed limit. But are the roads safer? Yes. The numbers talk for themselves whenever a new speed camera is installed in a road.
- overscore 6y ago
  Do the numbers speak for themselves? In Ireland, at least, speed cameras are generally placed at compliance black spots, not accident black spots. Speed cameras on extremely safe motorways here have never been shown to reduce accidents, only to reduce speeding.
  - 6y ago

ransom1538 6y ago

Take it another level. Every car should have a chip. Once you are in a speed limit - your car can't go faster. Oh wait, this wont generate revenue - so it wont work. Never mind.

beagle3 6y ago
Almost all cars can be set to respect a speed limit already; I do that when I drive on highways to make sure I don’t accidentally go over (which is easy to do especially when others around me do it). Outside of the US (and perhaps a few other places, but not many), speeding tickets are not designed to be a revenue source. (They do produce revenue, of course - but are not optimized or planned for that purpose)
leetcrew 6y ago
better yet, we ought to just put chips in people's brains. make illicit thoughts impossible.
- AgentME 6y ago
  It's a bad analogy because it's hard to imagine any kinds of thoughts/behaviors that we're absolutely sure we want to prevent. (Maybe some amount of nonviolent mischief is good for humanity, maybe the impulse for violent retribution is necessary when justice systems are flawed, maybe these kinds of thoughts are generally not acted on and actually make people more self-reflective, etc.) But it's at least a bit harder to come up with reasons that speed limits should be exceedable on public roads and a bit easier to think up solutions. Medical emergencies are one possible case, but having an override that records that the override happened and that you'll have to give a good reason for doing is a possible solution. Maybe there's sudden traffic situations where you have to speed up to avoid a crash, and the system could be made to allow limited bursts of speed.
roywiggins 6y ago
EU has been making some noises about doing exactly this. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288592-eu-wants-speed-governors-data-recorders-in-cars-for-2022 https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288592-eu-wants-speed-go...

ehnto 6y ago

My state in Australia have heavy, heavy fines, even compared to the rest of Aus. It doesn't reduce the amount of poor driving but speeding at least is unambiguous. There is no grey area. If the speed limit is 60kmph then you will get booked for exceeding it by 5kmph, and the only reason you get that 5kmph leeway is to account for camera calibration and some grace for speedometer calibration. They would ping you at 61kmph if they could We also have demerit points, so if you get caught speeding say three times in a row you will most likely have ran out of points on your license and automatically get a 3 to 6 month license suspension. Most of this is automated, so you may find out you were suspended by getting pulled over before the letter arrives. It's all very strict.

sjwright 6y ago
In Victoria they’ll ping you for going 62 km/h in a 60 zone.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  It's almost as if the speed limit is the speed limit!
- viraptor 6y ago
  Are you sure? I got a ticket in Victoria 2 years ago from an standalone camera and it explicitly included a few % grace. The sample image includes it too: https://online.fines.vic.gov.au/Assets/Images/refNo-mail.jpg https://online.fines.vic.gov.au/Assets/Images/refNo-mail.jpg > "The alleged speed is lower than the detected speed to allow for tolerance in detection equipment"
- ehnto 6y ago
  The fines are at least a bit more reasonable there. Do you find them reasonable or are they different for locals?
- intellirogue 6y ago
  In NZ, which generally copy-pastes VIC's traffic laws, the tolerance is only applied to automated systems like speed cameras. A cop can ticket you in-person when you're 1km/h over.

praveenperera 6y ago

No thanks.

guiriduro 6y ago
Don't worry - in Brexit Britain the tailbacks will be so long you'll struggle to find a road you can break the speed limit on. And those you can all have bends on them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

spoonjim 6y ago

"un-sporting"? It's not a game. It's about reducing the most common cause of preventable death. The harms to privacy or "freedom" or whatnot are more defensible here than pretty much anywhere else.

iso947 6y ago
In the U.K. excess speed is the 10th most common cause of accidents, way below “driver didn’t look properly”, which was 9 times as common. As far as deaths go, the most common contributory causes are loss of control and failure to look properly. Exceeding speed limit was a cause in just 16% of deaths. https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-road-accidents-in-britain https://www.regtransfers.co.uk/content/common-causes-for-roa... https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448037/road-fatalities-2013-data.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- 7952 6y ago
  I wonder if speeding is correlated with those other causes of accidents. It may not always be the cause of accidents but is evidence of bad judgement and easy to detect. In an ideal world we could also catch people who fail to check their blind spot, or get distracted automatically. Also, it does make the environment less hospitable for pedestrians and cyclists which is a good enough reason alone.
  - alvah 6y ago
    "(exceeding the one-size-fits all speed limit) is evidence of bad judgement" This is not as self-evident as you assert. Do you have anything to back up your claim?
    - 7952 6y ago
      Judgement is subjective. I would argue that the safest way to drive is conservatively and with caution. And that your own emotions, time constraints, and judgement about safety are not sufficiently compelling to override that. Of course as a society we are forced to strike a balance between safety and utility. Where you strike that balance is political and not entirely objective.

dazc 6y ago

'Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed.' Seems odd to me that Govt's struggle to raise revenue via normal taxes when they have a large pool of stupid people they could raise extra money from? Maybe making a regualr speeding fine a life changing amount rather than the negligable sum it is now would improve people's behaviour, raise some much needed revenue and save a few lives too?

forest_dweller 6y ago
> Maybe making a regualr speeding fine a life changing amount rather than the negligable sum it is now would improve people's behaviour, raise some much needed revenue and save a few lives too The fine is negligible if you are well off. It isn't if you aren't. If you get points (for SP-30), the increase in insurance is about £300-400. So the actual cost of the fine is closer to £400-500 which is the rent for the month. There has already been talk of making the fine be adjusted to how much you earn.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Accumulating enough points results in suspension of your licence, it's not only about insurance costs.
  - forest_dweller 6y ago
    Not always. There are quite a few drivers with more than 12 points on the road. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40862975 I personally am aware of many people that were speeding at well over 100mph. When they went to the majestrate they were let off with 6 points. People get away with things that should get them a suspension all the time.
DanBC 6y ago
> Seems odd to me that Govt's struggle to raise revenue via normal taxes when they have a large pool of stupid people they could raise extra money from? Extracting money from drivers was one of the causes of community tension in Fergusson. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pqskm > Are excessive traffic fines and debtors' jails fuelling community tensions in suburban Missouri? Claire Bolderson reports on a network of ninety separate cities in St Louis County, most of which have their own courts and police forces. Critics say that their size makes them financially unviable and allege that some of them boost their incomes by fining their own citizens and locking them up when they can't pay.

fergie 6y ago

Its worth noting that Norway has an extremely low traffic fatality rate, which is especially remarkable considering the adverse winter driving conditions and remoteness of many roads. (https://norwaytoday.info/news/norway-registers-lowest-number-of-traffic-related-deaths-in-decades/ https://norwaytoday.info/news/norway-registers-lowest-number...)

Closi 6y ago

I’ll assume you aren’t in the U.K. (which this article is about), because the U.K. system is almost exactly as you describe! > Norway's system of timed speed cameras are particularly wonderful -- they simply photograph a car and then photograph it again many kilometers later. If you get there too soon, then at some point, you must have been speeding. Uk has a combination of: * Average speed cameras (as per the Norway example) * Variable speed cameras (where the speed limit varies depending on the conditions of the road and congestion) * Fixed speed cameras (traditional speed cameras dug in next to a road) * Mobile speed cameras (as per the bbc article, with a purpose to make sure the position changes each day so locals don’t know where the cameras are). > These systems are safer for police and drivers as there are no traffic stops for speeding. Traffic stops in the U.K. are very rare, and even mobile cameras just send the documentation to your registered address with no stop. A stop would only be done in the U.K. if there was a belief that the driving was putting others at immediate risk (eg appears drunk).

IshKebab 6y ago
Average speed cameras are very rare outside roadworks though.
- coob 6y ago
  They're really not, there's 2000 of them in the UK: https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2020/09/25/uk-has-more-speed-cameras-than-the-usa https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/fleet-industry-news/2020/09...
  - 7952 6y ago
    That is approximately one for every 200km of road. Hardly seems like a lot.
    - kitd 6y ago
      They're focussed on the heavily used sections though, ie where they are more likely to be encountered. By that measure (kms driven), they're much more common.

carlhjerpe 6y ago

We do not have average speed cameras in Sweden and I hope we never will. The privacy implications of taking a photograph of everyone, process "who they are" (reg plate, generally driven by family member) is horrifying.

iso947 6y ago
You don’t have ring doorbells?
- carlhjerpe 6y ago
  If you're refering to doorbells with a camera facing the outside then no, they're very uncommon. There's very strict rules about how you're legally allowed to point a fixed installation camera in Sweden, you're not allowed to have a fixed installation that'll record anything that isn't your property. Not even the corner of the pavement. All in all, Swedes don't want cameras pointing all over, you have to put up signs if there are cameras and usually you should apply for a permit before installing cameras. Inside your house you're free to record as you like though. https://bit.ly/37dMVx2 https://bit.ly/37dMVx2 <- Translated law regarding cameras.
  - iso947 6y ago
    Similar restrictions in the U.K. with signs. CCTV signs are usually up for commercial companies, but residential wise it isn’t enforced, and from the local Facebook group people seem shocked at the very idea recording te street and posting pictures of troublemakers is illegal. I was disappointed by the number of people with them when I went door knocking for the election last year. The police actually advised me to get one for my grandmother who has been suffering from door to door scammers.
krapp 6y ago
What privacy implications? The government already knows who you are, they processed your vehicle registration and issued that license plate specifically to make your vehicle publicly identifiable. Are you also terrified that just anyone can read your house numbers or the address on your mailbox?

m463 6y ago

A friend of mine was traveling across france on a motorcycle (this was decades ago) and one day had to get home to england quite quickly. So he got on the tollway and went quickly. But apparently they checked entrance and exit times on the tickets and would calculate your speed, so he "lost" his ticket and paid the max cost to be safe. I guess it worked.

benhurmarcel 6y ago
In France they don't do that. At least not yet. There are a lot of automatic speed radars (at a single point), and a bit fewer average speed radars but they work over a few km at most (and don't interact with the toll).
- m463 6y ago
  He told me they check the entrance time on the ticket and when you get off at the exit they know approximately how long it should take you. And they would wave you off to the side if you made it say 120 miles in an hour instead of two. This was a long time ago.

jsinai 6y ago

> I once saw speed cameras as “un-sporting”. With no attack on the parent, this reminds me of the general driving attitude of South Africa where I am from. A combination of lack of road enforcement and public mistrust in the police have created an environment where the rule of law on the road, designed to protect lives, is treated merely as suggestions or guidelines, often ignored. It’s extremely common to see drivers speeding from 10 to even 30 km/h above the speed limit, even on urban roads. Sometimes these drivers are so confident in their right (freedom?) that they’ll flash their lights at you from behind if you’re going too slow, even if you are a good citizen driving at the speed limit. And speeding is only one half of it... When I came to Europe for the first time it was amazing to see how almost everyone respects the road rules (I know this isn’t the case everywhere) and it generally makes me feel much safer on the roads. Although it’s still scary as hell cycling in some cities without protected cycle lanes.

toyg 6y ago
Lol, in SA it’s almost funny, because the crappiest the car, the fastest it will rocket through the countryside. Insane speeds, and I’m Italian.
slumdev 6y ago
It's the same way in the United States. 40 km/h above the limit is the norm on our interstate highways. Perhaps only 20 km/h on smaller streets.
- chiph 6y ago
  Depends on the state & locality. Places like Virginia where having a radar detector is illegal (and the police have detector-detectors) and going 20mph over (32kph) or faster than 80mph (128kph)[0], gets you charged with reckless driving which is a criminal offense punishable by time in jail. So only the foolhardy speed there. In next-door North Carolina, going 9mph over (14kph) will only get you insurance points not license points (the state tracks them separately) so many drivers limit themselves to that on the interstates, and sometimes 5mph over (8kph) inside city limits. [0] Highway SH-130 outside Austin Texas has the fastest speed limit in the US at 85mph (136kph). So what is safe & legal there can get you placed in handcuffs in Virginia.

imtringued 6y ago

> Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed. I got a 100€ fine for speeding on a 130km/h. My crime? I was driving 100km/h instead of the supposed speed limit of 80km/h. Every day I drive down that section I slow down to 80km/h while everyone else rightfully drives at almost twice the speed at 130km/h or even faster without getting a ticket. I don't think this is safe. It's also not good for me psychologically. It means the rules are stupid and arbitrary and not worth trusting.

dabbledash 6y ago

>Beyond that, if you don’t want to get a fine, don’t speed My concern with this kind of thing is less about the speed limit and more that I believe people should be able to move around in public without being identified and tracked by the police. It’s one thing if the police have to observe something suspicious and then take the time to stop you for ID to find out who you are. It’s another if they can track and identify everyone all the time passively.

alkonaut 6y ago
> I believe people should be able to move around in public without being identified and tracked by the police. You can. Just not in a car, because cars have license plates so not only can police identify you, anyone who can lookup a plate can. It’s non-anonymous almost by definition. Where I live the registry is public so if I want I can ask for the owner of a license plate from the relevant authority.
- dabbledash 6y ago
  But I think one of the things we see with technology and privacy is that there’s a real difference between things that you can do, but they require manual human action and are therefor costly, and things that are done effortlessly and constantly. We’ve always had license plates, but we haven’t always had a government record of where every car has travelled. We will soon, I’m sure. And right now it’s true you can mostly walk or bike around in public without being tracked, but that’s just until we get the facial recognition really going. Then the argument will be that you were always showing your face in public and it was always possible that someone would recognize you so this is no different. But of course it will be different. And now it’s possible, if you have a conversation in a cafe, that someone will overhear you. But if every conversation were being recorded, transcribed, and transmitted to the authorities, that wouldn’t be the same thing at all.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    We get this problem all the time. The registry of cars was “public” so anyone could call and ask for the details or a car (e.g whether it had debt or parking fines or whether the guy trying to sell it was actually the owner). Then with the arrival of the internet, should this information be available at everyone’s fingertips? Should it be possible to web search it or was the phone call a good “rate limiter” and prevented abuse? It was actually decided it was, and it’s now call/text only. The discussion about everything being logged is why I like the GDPR. It’s the long term mass gathering of data that should be addressed.

noir_lord 6y ago

There are a fair few of those average speed camera setups near me and I love them, everyone just sits at the speed limit - far more effective than the trap cameras. Also my GPS (via bluetooth headphones) tells me when I'm entering and leaving a zone (not that I speed).

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> the bill goes to the car owner Presumably this doesn't apply with a 'formal' rental arrangement?

fudged71 6y ago

I am a huge fan of replacing instantaneous speed cameras with average speed cameras. Our city has the most dangerous road in Canada, speeding is the norm not the exception, and I haven’t seen any debate about average speed cameras

honkdaddy 6y ago
I'm curious - which road is that? In Brampton maybe?
- fudged71 6y ago
  I may be wrong, I can't find a source. It's Deerfoot Trail in Calgary.
tim333 6y ago
They work quite well from the safety point of view though they are a bit tedious and annoying from the driving point of view.

Lammy 6y ago

Sounds like “needing” to check speed is a great justification for building a surveillance system.

bsd44 6y ago

"Norway's system of timed speed cameras are particularly wonderful" It isn't wonderful at all. UK has average speed cameras as well and they are horrible. Every time I drive in average speed zones I spend more time looking down because 1) I don't want to go 5mi over the speed limit because I will get fined otherwise 2) I don't want to go 5mi below the speed limit because then drivers behind me have to break one by one which eventually causes a traffic jam 3) I can't overtake a lorry going 65 because it would take me too long and I might miss my exit, which then makes anxious because I have to extend my commute time if I get stuck behind one 4) I can't safely let people merge onto the motorway because if I speed up or slow down then 1) or 2) happen 5) I can't calculate my average speed and to avoid 1) and 2) I have to keep looking down not paying much attention to what's going on around me This only works on roads with little traffic, like in Scotland, where you can set cruise control and drive for miles. It doesn't work in Cambridge where AADT is ten times higher. "These systems are safer for police and drivers as there are no traffic stops for speeding." You are comparing average speed cameras to traffic stops, rather than stationary speed traps... "Can speed cameras be used as a revenue source? Yes." No because the primary reason for speed cameras is ensuring road safety, not generating revenue in which case you are encouraging installing speed cameras where they are not required. Speed cameras are not as safe you believe they are, otherwise they would be installed every 100 metres. "Beyond that, if you don't want to get a fine, don't speed." That's like saying "if you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy" using the same "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time" principle, which is flawed. There are plenty of situations where you would want to occasionally speed 10% over the speed limit, but that's not equal to speeding 100% over the speed limit for a very long time. Both will get you a fine. It's not as simple as black or white.