3 ms·

Well, to make a non-revenue-based argument: It gets people to slow down only where there are cameras and allows them to speed everywhere else. Without the tech

by jcl 17y ago

Well, to make a non-revenue-based argument: It gets people to slow down only where there are cameras and allows them to speed everywhere else. Without the technology that tells where the cameras are, people are uncertain whether speeding will yield a ticket and are less likely to speed. To get the same effect with camera-detection technology in place, you need to completely blanket the area with cameras.

randallsquared 17y ago
> you need to completely blanket the area with cameras. With every passing year, that's easier, cheaper, and less evitable. Hm. The spelling dictionary doesn't think 'evitable' is a word. People might as well get used to the idea that there will always be a record of what they were doing in public. More cameras and more storage mean never having to delete anything.
electromagnetic 17y ago
The non-revenue arguments usually fall flat simply because you're already punished for speeding in most places (you get demeanour points until your license is removed, and having a mark on your license can exclude you from certain jobs, increase your insurance and other consequences) yet they apply an overly underecessive fine. The simple fact of the matter is speeding is a crime, yet you don't get punished for it by the fine, you're essentially taxed for it. Here in Ontario they've finally started stepping up the punishment for speeding. If you're going overly fast (I believe it's double the local speed limit for most places) your car is towed and you're taken in for street racing. Fines in school zones and construction areas are doubled, which is now putting more 'punishment' toward risky behaviour. However, when you're handed a $100 speeding ticket in a $40,000 vehicle, it's never going to punish the person and the systems around the world have purposely ignored this. Their logic seems to be backed by revenue (if everyone speeds its another $100 x (n) million population) and not punishing criminal activity. However they ignore the fact that taking the persons $40,000 vehicle will likely get them the same amount of revenue and provide greater risk for the crime. I know in the UK the cameras have not been used for safety. When I learnt to drive there was one near-hairpin corner that the legal speed limit on was 60mph despite being barely able to make it at 20mph, they eventually changed the section to 30mph (where it can be made). However last time I was in the UK the corner still didn't have a camera on it, but had a sign saying like '42 people died on this road last year'. Yet they have cameras littering roads that have never had a death on them. It's hard to argue it's not for revenue when they've all but avoided any attempt to use cameras for actual safety (at least in the region I grew up in).

by jcl 17y ago

randallsquared 17y ago

> you need to completely blanket the area with cameras. With every passing year, that's easier, cheaper, and less evitable. Hm. The spelling dictionary doesn't think 'evitable' is a word. People might as well get used to the idea that there will always be a record of what they were doing in public. More cameras and more storage mean never having to delete anything.

electromagnetic 17y ago

The non-revenue arguments usually fall flat simply because you're already punished for speeding in most places (you get demeanour points until your license is removed, and having a mark on your license can exclude you from certain jobs, increase your insurance and other consequences) yet they apply an overly underecessive fine. The simple fact of the matter is speeding is a crime, yet you don't get punished for it by the fine, you're essentially taxed for it. Here in Ontario they've finally started stepping up the punishment for speeding. If you're going overly fast (I believe it's double the local speed limit for most places) your car is towed and you're taken in for street racing. Fines in school zones and construction areas are doubled, which is now putting more 'punishment' toward risky behaviour. However, when you're handed a $100 speeding ticket in a $40,000 vehicle, it's never going to punish the person and the systems around the world have purposely ignored this. Their logic seems to be backed by revenue (if everyone speeds its another $100 x (n) million population) and not punishing criminal activity. However they ignore the fact that taking the persons $40,000 vehicle will likely get them the same amount of revenue and provide greater risk for the crime. I know in the UK the cameras have not been used for safety. When I learnt to drive there was one near-hairpin corner that the legal speed limit on was 60mph despite being barely able to make it at 20mph, they eventually changed the section to 30mph (where it can be made). However last time I was in the UK the corner still didn't have a camera on it, but had a sign saying like '42 people died on this road last year'. Yet they have cameras littering roads that have never had a death on them. It's hard to argue it's not for revenue when they've all but avoided any attempt to use cameras for actual safety (at least in the region I grew up in).