4 ms·

To provide a small anecdote; on my 10 minute commute to work each morning, I pass no fewer than 6 speeding cameras, potentially more that I haven't noticed, and

by Mr_N 13y ago

To provide a small anecdote; on my 10 minute commute to work each morning, I pass no fewer than 6 speeding cameras, potentially more that I haven't noticed, and frankly, the sheer prevalence and "sneakyness" by which they are deployed convinced me long ago that the goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding. (Cameras hidden in bushes/behind trees, 2 cameras on the same block, within ~20 seconds of each other, both hidden behind shrubbery on the right hand side of a right hand turn). In writing this I admit I have second guesses of whether I'm being too tin foil hat with the suspicions, but it's basically a checklist of "where would I put cameras if I wanted to accumulate the maximum # of violations", with no regard to where the most dangerous roads on this commute are. Let's even take a step back here and look at the program itself. It's not really "news" that behavioral modification (which, in a perfect world, is the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding) doesn't really work well when the punishment is long after the action that it is reinforcing. One could make a very hand wavy argument about the flash, but it's a weak reinforcer (the monetary punishment being very delayed), and the swapping with infrared is the nail in the coffin of that argument.

pdonis 13y ago
the goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding You're just now realizing this? This has always been the primary goal of speeding laws (and many other traffic laws). They're a revenue source for state and local governments. the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding If that's really the goal (which it isn't, see above), it's the wrong goal. The goal should be to make driving safer. Punishing people when they haven't caused any actual harm does not serve that goal; in fact, it works against it, by reducing people's respect for all traffic laws and rules of the road. People view driving as a game, trying to evade being caught, instead of viewing it as what it is, being in control of a large and complex piece of machinery that can cause serious harm if misused, because the definition of "misuse" has been blown out of all proportion by a combination of nanny-state thinking and governments not wanting to openly admit their sources of revenue.
- Mr_N 13y ago
  Sorry if I was unclear; I meant to express that I had indeed quite some time ago come to the realization, but due to placement as I said and not due to any solid proof as is cited in the article. Secondly; I'm not sure I completely see you as disagreeing with my stated end goal. We want people to realize they are driving a potential weapon, and I think that's a change that'll have to come in far more areas than just traffic enforcement (better education, assessment of readiness, etc), but even in this dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm. And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns. (unless I totally misunderstood how you were approaching my statement and this just went off in a random direction...)
  - pdonis 13y ago
    even in this dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm But the question is not whether people's behavior affects the likelihood of harm; of course it does, in all areas of life, not just driving. The question is what is the appropriate response. See below. And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns And you do that, IMO, by attaching punishments to actual harm, not to an increased likelihood of harm (which must always be an estimate only). First of all, the legislator who drafts the speeding laws and the bureaucrat who sets the speed limits for particular roads can't possibly know as much as the driver who's actually on the spot about what a reasonably safe speed is in a particular situation; speeding laws can't adjust for varying conditions. Second, if punishments are attached to actual harm, and fall on the person who causes the harm, then that person has an incentive to make accurate estimates of the risk of harm. The legislator and the bureaucrat have no such incentive; but if the law can only impose punishment when there has been actual harm, the legislator and the bureaucrat can only do a limited amount of damage by trying to game the criteria. However, if punishments can be attached to just an estimated increase in risk of harm, rather than to actual harm, legislators and bureaucrats have an incentive to exaggerate the estimated risk of harm, since it allows them to lower the threshold for penalties and thereby bring in more revenue. But drivers themselves, who can see perfectly well that the criteria are being gamed, respond by trying to evade the law. The end result is that the costs of the system that is in place to catch speeders, and the escalating arms race between the speeders and the government, far outweigh any benefits that might accrue from imposing punishments when there has been no actual harm.

by Mr_N 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

the goal here was to rack up tickets rather than to prevent speeding You're just now realizing this? This has always been the primary goal of speeding laws (and many other traffic laws). They're a revenue source for state and local governments. the end goal of ticketing, getting speeders to stop speeding If that's really the goal (which it isn't, see above), it's the wrong goal. The goal should be to make driving safer. Punishing people when they haven't caused any actual harm does not serve that goal; in fact, it works against it, by reducing people's respect for all traffic laws and rules of the road. People view driving as a game, trying to evade being caught, instead of viewing it as what it is, being in control of a large and complex piece of machinery that can cause serious harm if misused, because the definition of "misuse" has been blown out of all proportion by a combination of nanny-state thinking and governments not wanting to openly admit their sources of revenue.

Mr_N 13y ago
Sorry if I was unclear; I meant to express that I had indeed quite some time ago come to the realization, but due to placement as I said and not due to any solid proof as is cited in the article. Secondly; I'm not sure I completely see you as disagreeing with my stated end goal. We want people to realize they are driving a potential weapon, and I think that's a change that'll have to come in far more areas than just traffic enforcement (better education, assessment of readiness, etc), but even in this dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm. And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns. (unless I totally misunderstood how you were approaching my statement and this just went off in a random direction...)
- pdonis 13y ago
  even in this dream world where we've made those changes, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we will still find places in which if drivers tend to exceed a certain speed, there comes a higher likelihood of said harm But the question is not whether people's behavior affects the likelihood of harm; of course it does, in all areas of life, not just driving. The question is what is the appropriate response. See below. And if someone is putting others at risk by violating this, it comes down to a question of how you respond to that, and I at least would pen a reasonable solution at trying to proactively influence their behavior patterns And you do that, IMO, by attaching punishments to actual harm, not to an increased likelihood of harm (which must always be an estimate only). First of all, the legislator who drafts the speeding laws and the bureaucrat who sets the speed limits for particular roads can't possibly know as much as the driver who's actually on the spot about what a reasonably safe speed is in a particular situation; speeding laws can't adjust for varying conditions. Second, if punishments are attached to actual harm, and fall on the person who causes the harm, then that person has an incentive to make accurate estimates of the risk of harm. The legislator and the bureaucrat have no such incentive; but if the law can only impose punishment when there has been actual harm, the legislator and the bureaucrat can only do a limited amount of damage by trying to game the criteria. However, if punishments can be attached to just an estimated increase in risk of harm, rather than to actual harm, legislators and bureaucrats have an incentive to exaggerate the estimated risk of harm, since it allows them to lower the threshold for penalties and thereby bring in more revenue. But drivers themselves, who can see perfectly well that the criteria are being gamed, respond by trying to evade the law. The end result is that the costs of the system that is in place to catch speeders, and the escalating arms race between the speeders and the government, far outweigh any benefits that might accrue from imposing punishments when there has been no actual harm.