24 ms·

Sweden’s 'speed camera lottery' hit a red light years ago (2021)

28 points by dekervin 5y ago

standardUser 5y ago
I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US. And while the idea of rewarding good drivers sounds nice, I have to imagine large automated fines would be a better approach, at least in the US. If a car is zooming down a freeway at 90mph while gliding across lanes with no blinker, why not send that driver a $5000 fine? We have the technology! And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving.
- sneak 5y ago
  We get all of the society-wide damage of automated surveillance of all travel (ALPR etc) with precisely none of the practical safety benefits. It's very plainly about control more than human life.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    "It's very plainly about control more than human life." You're asserting that a system that does not exist, and would save human lives if it did exist, could not exist for that provable, measurable reason, but instead can only exist for the paranoid reason you've asserted with no evidence. Do you see the flaw in that logic?
- codazoda 5y ago
  These systems often fail some of our rights tests. For example, it’s hard to “face your accuser” when it’s a camera. I believe speed cams failed for similar reasons in Utah. I do see red light cams in Chicago. I wonder if that’s because they are more politically accepted there. I’m not sure. Maybe I’m wrong about why they went away in Utah. This resource says… [1] > In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on the use of photo radar -- specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for-profit companies -- that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an "effective ban" on photo enforcement. There are reports of them being unconstitutional but they might not be credible.[2] 1. https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp 2. https://www.independentsentinel.com/speed-cameras-ruled-unconstitutional-city-has-to-pay-back-ticketed-drivers/ https://www.independentsentinel.com/speed-cameras-ruled-unco...
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The right to face your accuser is only in criminal court, which is why the red light cameras in places like Chicago issue only civil fines.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    We had loads of red light cameras where I am, and while there are still some around the vast majority were removed because they caused drivers who otherwise would have safely blown a yellow to jam on the brakes, much to the chagrin of the person behind them who suddenly had less braking distance. And yeah, people should leave more room, but they don't. So you get enforcement camera-induced accidents, thus defeating the purpose.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      IIRC red light cameras increase rear-ends but dramatically reduce t-boning, which has a much worse fatality rate.
      - JamisonM 5y ago
        And the real issue is most likely too-short yellows!
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        erik_seaberg 5y ago
        The issue is intentionally shortened yellow lights, because the operator often has no incentive to reduce the accident rate but a perverse incentive to increase the violation rate.
- CPLX 5y ago
  > If a car is zooming down a freeway at 90mph while gliding across lanes with no blinker, why not send that driver a $5000 fine? Because that’s super fun and everyone’s gotta die sooner or later anyways?
  - LAC-Tech 5y ago
    Then do it on a racetrack. Not when other peoples lives are at risk. Fatal car accidents happen all the time. They're not rare.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    To me, that perspective is sick and psychopathic. There are a thousand ways to get kicks in life without directly endangering the lives of other human beings. Some people like skydiving and rock climbing. I like to do lots of drugs and have adventurous sex. But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.
    - CPLX 5y ago
      > But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast. Or an American. My point which I mistakenly thought was self apparent is that this attitude is pretty ingrained as a core premise of American pop culture.
      - listenallyall 5y ago
        I think you've watched way too many Fast and Furious movies. They're fiction, not a documentary. When Paul Walker actually did die from driving too fast, the universal reaction was sadness, yes, but appalled that he'd be so irresponsible, especially putting other people in danger.
        CPLX 5y ago
        I’m responding to this: > I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US. I think the answer is because Americans have a love affair with the car and view driving fast as an expression of personal freedom. Runner up guess is that cops like pulling people over for a living.
- tomrod 5y ago
  > And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving. We need proof of that. It turns out to be legally thorny. - Is the driver recognizable and is the owner? - What is the penalty for non-payment? - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate? - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable? - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker? - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker? - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity? - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker? - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph? - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies? - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph? - Will humans audit the system? - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Sure, we can make a list of thorny questions for literally any proposed change to any law or system. Ah, the wonders of rhetoric! But I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome, as most problems are overcome for most basic functions of civilization.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Well, except that every implemented speed camera system definitely not only hasn’t solved those problems, but also doesn’t seem to contribute to actual safety either.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        You speak as if no better system could ever be implemented so we should just throw our hands in the air. I thought these threads were full of engineers.
        lazide 5y ago
        You act like a technical solution is the appropriate one, or enough people want to solve the problem that you’d get any interest in solving it.
- mlindner 5y ago
  I think the drivers who properly drive the stated speed limit when the speed limits are artificially low (many places in California bay area) while the rest of the traffic is moving faster are a much more significant danger than those who are "speeding" but driving the speed of traffic. Often the traffic is 20 mph over the speed limit. The reality of the situation is that drivers adapt their speeds to the safety of the roads. If it's a curving road with poor surface conditions with limited visibility people drive slower. If it's a perfectly flat, perfectly straight road people will drive quite fast, because it's safe to do so.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    Consider that bicyclists and pedestrians cannot match higher speeds. Some limits are designed to save their lives.
    - mlindner 5y ago
      No one is riding bicycles or walking on the roads where speed cameras are. In the US speed cameras only get put on roads with high speed travel.
      - kderbe 5y ago
        There are mobile speed cameras installed near several schools in my US neighborhood.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
        The DC area has speed cameras all over normal city streets
  - II2II 5y ago
    Moving with the traffic is one factor. Another factor is the speed that the roads are designed to handle. While the former is probably the most significant factor when it comes to safety, there is little doubt in my mind that traffic fatalities would go down if everyone moved with the traffic at the speed limit. As for people adapting their speeds based upon what's safe and what's not, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The joke around here is that people forget how to drive during the first snowfall. Not forget how to drive in the snow. Forget how to drive altogether. Why? Because people aren't adapting their speed. Likewise, people often drive at high speeds on winding roads. People often drive with sole consideration to the road, without any consideration to what surrounds it (e.g. schools, hospitals, pedestrians, cyclists, lane ways, entrances to parking lots, etc.). Speed limits exist for a reason. Yes, sometimes bad decisions are made by stupid people when creating those speed limits. On the other hand, those stupid people probably know more about traffic safety than someone who thinks they have the right to endanger people by driving over the speed limit.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Because there is a massive gulf between how the law is written and what people do. And Americans are very much not fond of an automated jackboot stepping into that gap. You are advocating for the authoritarian extremist stance on something that people simply don't care much about to a population that's fairly hostile to those kinds of authoritarian stances.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  What ends up happening is, since the automated systems are stationary, their location becomes known, so the drivers speed everywhere except just before the automated system. And they generally slow down in a rather dramatic and unsafe fashion.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Obviously we need a more robust system. The fact that the current system is lacking does not mean that all possible systems would be. It means the very opposite - the current methods have ample room for improvement.
    - lazide 5y ago
      Maybe drones that follow everyone around and shoot missiles at them if they speed?
  - oneeyedpigeon 5y ago
    In the UK, my satnav specifically tells me when I'm approaching a speed camera. I'm not sure why that's legal.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      (As an American,) I’m puzzled at the thought that that wouldn’t be legal. To me, that seems like it should be protected free speech.
      - krapp 5y ago
        Do machines have the right to free speech?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        The authors of the GPS software and the buyers of the GPS do.
      - 5y ago
- sokoloff 5y ago
  First, can you prove who the driver is? It seems you could ticket the car owner more readily than the driver, using only automated means. Second, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans object to both automated and stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Our highways regularly move at 15-25 mph over the posted limits and people like it that way. If we were willing to post speed limits at the 85th percentile observed speed and ticket only at more than the greater of 6 mph or 15% over that, then people might be willing to have stricter enforcement.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Ticket the owner.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Nearly everyone drives at a safe speed, regardless of what the posted speed limit is (both over and under). I can't even recall witnessing insanely dangerous driving, outside of someone clearly impaired. It speeding laws were removed (except for children zones), I doubt you'd see any difference.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I see people weaving in and out of lanes on a regular basis when I drive in California, usually at a much higher speed than other cars. Where do you drive that you don't often see dangerous driving?
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I see people doing that as well; most of the time what I see isn’t actually dangerous; it’s mildly annoying but objectively does not appear to be dangerous.
      - standardUser 5y ago
        Objectively speaking, driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do in our lives. Though it is debatable which behaviors cause more injury and death, I would argue that any behavior that surprises other drivers is something we should work to deter. And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death. It's not that simple. Driving on city streets, at lower speeds, has higher accident and fatality rates. Increasing the speed limit on highways actually reduced fatalities because more people would eschew the city streets for the freeways. Personally, driving 55 was always lulling me to sleep. I was always stopping at McD's for coffee, or the rest stops so I could run a lap or so. Driving faster keeps me awake and alert. BTW, I'm not proposing legalizing reckless driving.
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  Driving 90mph on a freeway isn't necessarily dangerous...
  - standardUser 5y ago
    Agreed! I was describing cars that are exceeding the speed of other cars on a fairly busy freeway and not using turn signals while rapidly changing lanes. Something I have seen a lot in California specifically. I've done plenty of multi-state drives on mostly-empty highways with cruise control set at 90mph. And I think most people would agree that speed limits on those roads should be raised.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > while gliding across lanes with no blinker Might as well read the rest of the description they provided.
    - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
      Again not necessarily dangerous. On a freeway (which by definition has no intersections unless my understanding is wrong) if there is zero traffic and you check your mirrors and blind spot I'd be pretty pissed to get some automatic ticket for this
  - mjevans 5y ago
    Washington State (and probably other states are similar) has a law often summarized as: 'Keep Right - Except to Pass'. Going SLOW in the left lane(s), particularly on the often 4+ wide lane Interstate Freeways near the urban core(s), is (I would love a real study on this) more dangerous than a driver going a little faster the further left they go. Though the most dangerous, and disruptive, are full-interrupts from enforcement officers to pull someone over and issue a ticket; which also causes a road hazard and gawker block. I would much rather those public servants focused on even other traffic laws: improperly secured loads, failure to keep right to allow others to pass. Even more preferentially focused on non-traffic crimes: theft, various threats / assaults, etc.
- climb_stealth 5y ago
  To be honest, I'd much rather more effort is spent on education around safe driving. Certain reckless drivers are always going to be reckless. Australia has the approach of heavy fines for the slightest infractions. As in 3km/h over the speed limit and you can be fined and receive demerit points that affect your insurance. It just feels oppressive. It's terrible.
  - bedobi 5y ago
    Australian drivers are the some of the worst, angriest and most inconsiderate in the world in my experience. Don't believe me get on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, you're guaranteed to see countless people tailgating with less than a meter distance to the car in front at 120+ kmh, snaking between lanes, abusing each other etc etc. Urban speed limits are too high and planners seem to have zero consideration for the safety of people on foot, bike and alternative transport. Hooning is rampant. I could go on. Speed cameras are woefully inadequate to fix any of it.
    - porty 5y ago
      I'm going to need your home country for comparison - I find what you're saying here sounds a lot more like California (where I live now) than Australia.
      - bedobi 5y ago
        I learned how to drive in Stockholm, which isn't great either, but doesn't get close to Australia. By all means I think Vancouver and California drivers suck too :P I used to work in Vancouver CBD and witnessed several accidents people get hit by cars on the corner Robson Hornby. The city never did anything about it, it was just accepted as a fact of daily life. EDIT a quick Google reveals people, including infants, are still getting hit and killed on the corner Robson Hornby, and it doesn't look like there's been any traffic calming or bollards or fencing or anything added to keep pedestrians safe. (people aren't just getting hit when crossing the intersection, they're getting hit by cars coming up on the sidewalks etc, it's crazy)
    - 5y ago
- Maursault 5y ago
  > I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US Although local municipalities often ignore the entire Bill of Rights, I believe at the State level they take the 6th Amendment more seriously, specifically the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It really is not possible to cross-examine a camera, a machine, a computer, or a more complex system. This kind of 6th Amendment issue was explored in a first season episode of the original Star Trek series, Court Martial.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfFWs4BKBE&t=2m9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfFWs4BKBE&t=2m9s
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    This is bizarre. In many European countries you absolutely have the right to challenge any and all evidence against you if you decide to contest the penalty. In such case you go to court to make your case.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    The machine captures evidence of your offense, but is not your accuser, that would be the state, who has to prove that the evidence is sound. Your theory would make CCTV recordings inadmissible against burgalars. Besides, that limitation is about criminal, not civil, matters.
- m463 5y ago
  I think if traffic laws were more rational, we wouldn't have these problems. I think it's interesting that on the autobahn the kind of behavior you're talking about is minimized. Because there is no speed limit, slower traffic keeps right, and people who want to pass can do so on the left. In the US, when everybody is going the speed limit or above, there is a general disregard for most laws. If the speed limit is 65, people in the left lane going over the speed limit feel entitled to go 66, and the folks who want to go 70 get blocked, get upset and end up going 90, passing on the right and making it worse for everyone.
- windows2020 5y ago
  Don't go to Texas... or even the NJTP.
- Tagbert 5y ago
  Maybe because the automated enforcement can easily be applied for unexpected goals. In the US, many red light cameras are operated by private companies that are contracted by local governments. They split the revenue. The private companies will then reduce the duration of yellow lights to to increase the number of tickets. The end result is sometimes more accidents as the time from green to red is reduced and more fine revenue is collected. That seems like a perverse incentive for a perverse outcome.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But that's an enormous implementation problem. You can't fault the good idea ( automates speed/basic rule like not going through red lights enforcement) for that. Fault the idiots who thought it's a good idea to outsource, with a profit motive at that, such an essential service. What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals?
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >You can't fault the good idea Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest? >What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals? Informants do basically this all the time.
      - sofixa 5y ago
        > Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest? You can make that exact same argument for literally everything. Drunk drivers are against the public interest. So are child porn distributors, tax evaders, unfettered capitalists and a bunch of other things, so should we just ban cars, the internet and just about everything? You can ruin pretty much everything with the shittiest possible implementation, that doesn't invalidate the base logic behind the thing.
mlindner 5y ago
Speed cameras are a plague on society.
- fundmondawyaya 5y ago
  They're better than speed stops. Having been pulled over a few times, and received a few mail tickets, the latter make a lot more sense. When I get pulled over, there's always a bit of menace. I've had K-9s sniff around my car while the officer admires toys attached to it. In the US, there are swaths where any roads off the interstates are basically bandit territory if you have out-of-state plates and/or the wrong colored skin. When I get a ticket in the mail, I can choose to pay or contest it with a level head. Often the mail tickets include links to a video, which can be hilarious if you register your vehicle to a family address. But modern traffic stops are an embarrassing blight on the nation, especially considering our civil forfeiture laws. If you're in the US, pray that you get a state trooper.
  - windows2020 5y ago
    Many states, where speed cameras are illegal, disagree.
- porty 5y ago
  [citation needed] I've been fined a few times. I eventually figured out that if you don't speed you don't get fines :)
  - dijonman2 5y ago
    Speed limits are generally too low.. this is the problem.
    - ColonelPhantom 5y ago
      Or roads are badly designed, in a way that their psychological speed limit is higher than what is indicated. But the lower limit can have more reasons, such as noise pollution near a residential area, or pedestrian safety.
alaxsxaq 5y ago
There are some issues, as have been pointed out, but one very real incentive to figuring those things out is the opportunity to reduce the number of problematic interactions with the police.
gnicholas 5y ago
The notion of paying people to drive the speed limit (with money taken from speeding ticket fines) reminded me of the daycare late charge experiments. [1] These showed that when daycares started charging late fees to parents who were picking up kids late, parents became less timely. Apparently the fees transformed the transaction into a financial one, and parents felt that they could pick up later because they were paying for it. I could imagine a similar thing happening with this type of financial system for drivers. People might drive slower sometimes, but figure it's OK to speed other times because the whole system is financially-mediated. 1: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t... FWIW, I have no idea if anyone has tried, succeeded, or failed to replicate these experiments.
- stubish 5y ago
  It doesn't work that way with speed cameras here. Repeated offenses will get your license revoked, at which point your offenses start being driving without a license and speeding which will end in jail.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  That sounds okay though as long as the fee is correctly set. Its likely that at any decent sized daycare one of the employees would be willing to do overtime each day.
- kmos17 5y ago
  Not what happened in that experiment, it’s in the article: “Over the initial three-day trial, almost 25,000 cars were caught on camera, according to the YouTube video. The average speed of cars travelling through the school zone was reduced from 32km/h before the trial to 25km/h during the experiment.” Enforcement of fines plus the possibility of losing one’s license i think would be enough to ensure the effectiveness, but maybe also displaying each driver’s speed visibly is a factor? In fact I imagine for the daycare experiment if they had combined fines + the possibility of having ones child dismissed from the program it also would have been more effective.
fhrow4484 5y ago
What the article doesn't answer: Did the experiment show a reduction in children hit in the school zone? I'd be pretty pissed if a kid was hit because someone was more focused on their speedometer than on the road. For cars where you can put your speed limiter that shouldn't be an issue, but otherwise I prefer people driving 32km/h who are paying attention than 25km/h people distracted by speedometer readings...

28 points by dekervin 5y ago

I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US. And while the idea of rewarding good drivers sounds nice, I have to imagine large automated fines would be a better approach, at least in the US. If a car is zooming down a freeway at 90mph while gliding across lanes with no blinker, why not send that driver a $5000 fine? We have the technology! And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving.

sneak 5y ago
We get all of the society-wide damage of automated surveillance of all travel (ALPR etc) with precisely none of the practical safety benefits. It's very plainly about control more than human life.
- standardUser 5y ago
  "It's very plainly about control more than human life." You're asserting that a system that does not exist, and would save human lives if it did exist, could not exist for that provable, measurable reason, but instead can only exist for the paranoid reason you've asserted with no evidence. Do you see the flaw in that logic?
codazoda 5y ago
These systems often fail some of our rights tests. For example, it’s hard to “face your accuser” when it’s a camera. I believe speed cams failed for similar reasons in Utah. I do see red light cams in Chicago. I wonder if that’s because they are more politically accepted there. I’m not sure. Maybe I’m wrong about why they went away in Utah. This resource says… [1] > In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on the use of photo radar -- specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for-profit companies -- that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an "effective ban" on photo enforcement. There are reports of them being unconstitutional but they might not be credible.[2] 1. https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp 2. https://www.independentsentinel.com/speed-cameras-ruled-unconstitutional-city-has-to-pay-back-ticketed-drivers/ https://www.independentsentinel.com/speed-cameras-ruled-unco...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  The right to face your accuser is only in criminal court, which is why the red light cameras in places like Chicago issue only civil fines.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  We had loads of red light cameras where I am, and while there are still some around the vast majority were removed because they caused drivers who otherwise would have safely blown a yellow to jam on the brakes, much to the chagrin of the person behind them who suddenly had less braking distance. And yeah, people should leave more room, but they don't. So you get enforcement camera-induced accidents, thus defeating the purpose.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    IIRC red light cameras increase rear-ends but dramatically reduce t-boning, which has a much worse fatality rate.
    - JamisonM 5y ago
      And the real issue is most likely too-short yellows!
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - erik_seaberg 5y ago
        The issue is intentionally shortened yellow lights, because the operator often has no incentive to reduce the accident rate but a perverse incentive to increase the violation rate.
CPLX 5y ago
> If a car is zooming down a freeway at 90mph while gliding across lanes with no blinker, why not send that driver a $5000 fine? Because that’s super fun and everyone’s gotta die sooner or later anyways?
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  Then do it on a racetrack. Not when other peoples lives are at risk. Fatal car accidents happen all the time. They're not rare.
- standardUser 5y ago
  To me, that perspective is sick and psychopathic. There are a thousand ways to get kicks in life without directly endangering the lives of other human beings. Some people like skydiving and rock climbing. I like to do lots of drugs and have adventurous sex. But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    > But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast. Or an American. My point which I mistakenly thought was self apparent is that this attitude is pretty ingrained as a core premise of American pop culture.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      I think you've watched way too many Fast and Furious movies. They're fiction, not a documentary. When Paul Walker actually did die from driving too fast, the universal reaction was sadness, yes, but appalled that he'd be so irresponsible, especially putting other people in danger.
      - CPLX 5y ago
        I’m responding to this: > I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US. I think the answer is because Americans have a love affair with the car and view driving fast as an expression of personal freedom. Runner up guess is that cops like pulling people over for a living.
tomrod 5y ago
> And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving. We need proof of that. It turns out to be legally thorny. - Is the driver recognizable and is the owner? - What is the penalty for non-payment? - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate? - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable? - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker? - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker? - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity? - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker? - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph? - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies? - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph? - Will humans audit the system? - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?
- standardUser 5y ago
  Sure, we can make a list of thorny questions for literally any proposed change to any law or system. Ah, the wonders of rhetoric! But I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome, as most problems are overcome for most basic functions of civilization.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Well, except that every implemented speed camera system definitely not only hasn’t solved those problems, but also doesn’t seem to contribute to actual safety either.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      You speak as if no better system could ever be implemented so we should just throw our hands in the air. I thought these threads were full of engineers.
      - lazide 5y ago
        You act like a technical solution is the appropriate one, or enough people want to solve the problem that you’d get any interest in solving it.
mlindner 5y ago
I think the drivers who properly drive the stated speed limit when the speed limits are artificially low (many places in California bay area) while the rest of the traffic is moving faster are a much more significant danger than those who are "speeding" but driving the speed of traffic. Often the traffic is 20 mph over the speed limit. The reality of the situation is that drivers adapt their speeds to the safety of the roads. If it's a curving road with poor surface conditions with limited visibility people drive slower. If it's a perfectly flat, perfectly straight road people will drive quite fast, because it's safe to do so.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  Consider that bicyclists and pedestrians cannot match higher speeds. Some limits are designed to save their lives.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    No one is riding bicycles or walking on the roads where speed cameras are. In the US speed cameras only get put on roads with high speed travel.
    - kderbe 5y ago
      There are mobile speed cameras installed near several schools in my US neighborhood.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 5y ago
      The DC area has speed cameras all over normal city streets
- II2II 5y ago
  Moving with the traffic is one factor. Another factor is the speed that the roads are designed to handle. While the former is probably the most significant factor when it comes to safety, there is little doubt in my mind that traffic fatalities would go down if everyone moved with the traffic at the speed limit. As for people adapting their speeds based upon what's safe and what's not, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The joke around here is that people forget how to drive during the first snowfall. Not forget how to drive in the snow. Forget how to drive altogether. Why? Because people aren't adapting their speed. Likewise, people often drive at high speeds on winding roads. People often drive with sole consideration to the road, without any consideration to what surrounds it (e.g. schools, hospitals, pedestrians, cyclists, lane ways, entrances to parking lots, etc.). Speed limits exist for a reason. Yes, sometimes bad decisions are made by stupid people when creating those speed limits. On the other hand, those stupid people probably know more about traffic safety than someone who thinks they have the right to endanger people by driving over the speed limit.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Because there is a massive gulf between how the law is written and what people do. And Americans are very much not fond of an automated jackboot stepping into that gap. You are advocating for the authoritarian extremist stance on something that people simply don't care much about to a population that's fairly hostile to those kinds of authoritarian stances.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
What ends up happening is, since the automated systems are stationary, their location becomes known, so the drivers speed everywhere except just before the automated system. And they generally slow down in a rather dramatic and unsafe fashion.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Obviously we need a more robust system. The fact that the current system is lacking does not mean that all possible systems would be. It means the very opposite - the current methods have ample room for improvement.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Maybe drones that follow everyone around and shoot missiles at them if they speed?
- oneeyedpigeon 5y ago
  In the UK, my satnav specifically tells me when I'm approaching a speed camera. I'm not sure why that's legal.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    (As an American,) I’m puzzled at the thought that that wouldn’t be legal. To me, that seems like it should be protected free speech.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Do machines have the right to free speech?
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        The authors of the GPS software and the buyers of the GPS do.
    - 5y ago
sokoloff 5y ago
First, can you prove who the driver is? It seems you could ticket the car owner more readily than the driver, using only automated means. Second, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans object to both automated and stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Our highways regularly move at 15-25 mph over the posted limits and people like it that way. If we were willing to post speed limits at the 85th percentile observed speed and ticket only at more than the greater of 6 mph or 15% over that, then people might be willing to have stricter enforcement.
- standardUser 5y ago
  Ticket the owner.
WalterBright 5y ago
Nearly everyone drives at a safe speed, regardless of what the posted speed limit is (both over and under). I can't even recall witnessing insanely dangerous driving, outside of someone clearly impaired. It speeding laws were removed (except for children zones), I doubt you'd see any difference.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- standardUser 5y ago
  I see people weaving in and out of lanes on a regular basis when I drive in California, usually at a much higher speed than other cars. Where do you drive that you don't often see dangerous driving?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I see people doing that as well; most of the time what I see isn’t actually dangerous; it’s mildly annoying but objectively does not appear to be dangerous.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      Objectively speaking, driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do in our lives. Though it is debatable which behaviors cause more injury and death, I would argue that any behavior that surprises other drivers is something we should work to deter. And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death. It's not that simple. Driving on city streets, at lower speeds, has higher accident and fatality rates. Increasing the speed limit on highways actually reduced fatalities because more people would eschew the city streets for the freeways. Personally, driving 55 was always lulling me to sleep. I was always stopping at McD's for coffee, or the rest stops so I could run a lap or so. Driving faster keeps me awake and alert. BTW, I'm not proposing legalizing reckless driving.
weird-eye-issue 5y ago
Driving 90mph on a freeway isn't necessarily dangerous...
- standardUser 5y ago
  Agreed! I was describing cars that are exceeding the speed of other cars on a fairly busy freeway and not using turn signals while rapidly changing lanes. Something I have seen a lot in California specifically. I've done plenty of multi-state drives on mostly-empty highways with cruise control set at 90mph. And I think most people would agree that speed limits on those roads should be raised.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > while gliding across lanes with no blinker Might as well read the rest of the description they provided.
  - weird-eye-issue 5y ago
    Again not necessarily dangerous. On a freeway (which by definition has no intersections unless my understanding is wrong) if there is zero traffic and you check your mirrors and blind spot I'd be pretty pissed to get some automatic ticket for this
- mjevans 5y ago
  Washington State (and probably other states are similar) has a law often summarized as: 'Keep Right - Except to Pass'. Going SLOW in the left lane(s), particularly on the often 4+ wide lane Interstate Freeways near the urban core(s), is (I would love a real study on this) more dangerous than a driver going a little faster the further left they go. Though the most dangerous, and disruptive, are full-interrupts from enforcement officers to pull someone over and issue a ticket; which also causes a road hazard and gawker block. I would much rather those public servants focused on even other traffic laws: improperly secured loads, failure to keep right to allow others to pass. Even more preferentially focused on non-traffic crimes: theft, various threats / assaults, etc.
climb_stealth 5y ago
To be honest, I'd much rather more effort is spent on education around safe driving. Certain reckless drivers are always going to be reckless. Australia has the approach of heavy fines for the slightest infractions. As in 3km/h over the speed limit and you can be fined and receive demerit points that affect your insurance. It just feels oppressive. It's terrible.
- bedobi 5y ago
  Australian drivers are the some of the worst, angriest and most inconsiderate in the world in my experience. Don't believe me get on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, you're guaranteed to see countless people tailgating with less than a meter distance to the car in front at 120+ kmh, snaking between lanes, abusing each other etc etc. Urban speed limits are too high and planners seem to have zero consideration for the safety of people on foot, bike and alternative transport. Hooning is rampant. I could go on. Speed cameras are woefully inadequate to fix any of it.
  - porty 5y ago
    I'm going to need your home country for comparison - I find what you're saying here sounds a lot more like California (where I live now) than Australia.
    - bedobi 5y ago
      I learned how to drive in Stockholm, which isn't great either, but doesn't get close to Australia. By all means I think Vancouver and California drivers suck too :P I used to work in Vancouver CBD and witnessed several accidents people get hit by cars on the corner Robson Hornby. The city never did anything about it, it was just accepted as a fact of daily life. EDIT a quick Google reveals people, including infants, are still getting hit and killed on the corner Robson Hornby, and it doesn't look like there's been any traffic calming or bollards or fencing or anything added to keep pedestrians safe. (people aren't just getting hit when crossing the intersection, they're getting hit by cars coming up on the sidewalks etc, it's crazy)
  - 5y ago
Maursault 5y ago
> I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US Although local municipalities often ignore the entire Bill of Rights, I believe at the State level they take the 6th Amendment more seriously, specifically the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It really is not possible to cross-examine a camera, a machine, a computer, or a more complex system. This kind of 6th Amendment issue was explored in a first season episode of the original Star Trek series, Court Martial.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfFWs4BKBE&t=2m9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfFWs4BKBE&t=2m9s
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  This is bizarre. In many European countries you absolutely have the right to challenge any and all evidence against you if you decide to contest the penalty. In such case you go to court to make your case.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  The machine captures evidence of your offense, but is not your accuser, that would be the state, who has to prove that the evidence is sound. Your theory would make CCTV recordings inadmissible against burgalars. Besides, that limitation is about criminal, not civil, matters.
m463 5y ago
I think if traffic laws were more rational, we wouldn't have these problems. I think it's interesting that on the autobahn the kind of behavior you're talking about is minimized. Because there is no speed limit, slower traffic keeps right, and people who want to pass can do so on the left. In the US, when everybody is going the speed limit or above, there is a general disregard for most laws. If the speed limit is 65, people in the left lane going over the speed limit feel entitled to go 66, and the folks who want to go 70 get blocked, get upset and end up going 90, passing on the right and making it worse for everyone.
windows2020 5y ago
Don't go to Texas... or even the NJTP.
Tagbert 5y ago
Maybe because the automated enforcement can easily be applied for unexpected goals. In the US, many red light cameras are operated by private companies that are contracted by local governments. They split the revenue. The private companies will then reduce the duration of yellow lights to to increase the number of tickets. The end result is sometimes more accidents as the time from green to red is reduced and more fine revenue is collected. That seems like a perverse incentive for a perverse outcome.
- sofixa 5y ago
  But that's an enormous implementation problem. You can't fault the good idea ( automates speed/basic rule like not going through red lights enforcement) for that. Fault the idiots who thought it's a good idea to outsource, with a profit motive at that, such an essential service. What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >You can't fault the good idea Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest? >What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals? Informants do basically this all the time.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest? You can make that exact same argument for literally everything. Drunk drivers are against the public interest. So are child porn distributors, tax evaders, unfettered capitalists and a bunch of other things, so should we just ban cars, the internet and just about everything? You can ruin pretty much everything with the shittiest possible implementation, that doesn't invalidate the base logic behind the thing.

mlindner 5y ago

Speed cameras are a plague on society.

fundmondawyaya 5y ago
They're better than speed stops. Having been pulled over a few times, and received a few mail tickets, the latter make a lot more sense. When I get pulled over, there's always a bit of menace. I've had K-9s sniff around my car while the officer admires toys attached to it. In the US, there are swaths where any roads off the interstates are basically bandit territory if you have out-of-state plates and/or the wrong colored skin. When I get a ticket in the mail, I can choose to pay or contest it with a level head. Often the mail tickets include links to a video, which can be hilarious if you register your vehicle to a family address. But modern traffic stops are an embarrassing blight on the nation, especially considering our civil forfeiture laws. If you're in the US, pray that you get a state trooper.
- windows2020 5y ago
  Many states, where speed cameras are illegal, disagree.
porty 5y ago
[citation needed] I've been fined a few times. I eventually figured out that if you don't speed you don't get fines :)
- dijonman2 5y ago
  Speed limits are generally too low.. this is the problem.
  - ColonelPhantom 5y ago
    Or roads are badly designed, in a way that their psychological speed limit is higher than what is indicated. But the lower limit can have more reasons, such as noise pollution near a residential area, or pedestrian safety.

alaxsxaq 5y ago

There are some issues, as have been pointed out, but one very real incentive to figuring those things out is the opportunity to reduce the number of problematic interactions with the police.

gnicholas 5y ago

The notion of paying people to drive the speed limit (with money taken from speeding ticket fines) reminded me of the daycare late charge experiments. [1] These showed that when daycares started charging late fees to parents who were picking up kids late, parents became less timely. Apparently the fees transformed the transaction into a financial one, and parents felt that they could pick up later because they were paying for it. I could imagine a similar thing happening with this type of financial system for drivers. People might drive slower sometimes, but figure it's OK to speed other times because the whole system is financially-mediated. 1: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t... FWIW, I have no idea if anyone has tried, succeeded, or failed to replicate these experiments.

stubish 5y ago
It doesn't work that way with speed cameras here. Repeated offenses will get your license revoked, at which point your offenses start being driving without a license and speeding which will end in jail.
akvadrako 5y ago
That sounds okay though as long as the fee is correctly set. Its likely that at any decent sized daycare one of the employees would be willing to do overtime each day.
kmos17 5y ago
Not what happened in that experiment, it’s in the article: “Over the initial three-day trial, almost 25,000 cars were caught on camera, according to the YouTube video. The average speed of cars travelling through the school zone was reduced from 32km/h before the trial to 25km/h during the experiment.” Enforcement of fines plus the possibility of losing one’s license i think would be enough to ensure the effectiveness, but maybe also displaying each driver’s speed visibly is a factor? In fact I imagine for the daycare experiment if they had combined fines + the possibility of having ones child dismissed from the program it also would have been more effective.

fhrow4484 5y ago

What the article doesn't answer: Did the experiment show a reduction in children hit in the school zone? I'd be pretty pissed if a kid was hit because someone was more focused on their speedometer than on the road. For cars where you can put your speed limiter that shouldn't be an issue, but otherwise I prefer people driving 32km/h who are paying attention than 25km/h people distracted by speedometer readings...