“On the flip side driving too slowly can be just as dangerous. Let’s say the speed limit is 65 MPH, but in the real world the prevailing (85th percentile) speed is 80 MPH. If you have 100 cars traveling at 80 MPH and one person driving at say 55 MPH the person driving 55 MPH is creating a safety problem for the majority who are traveling at the prevailing, though illegal, speed.”
I disagree. There are two aspects to safety with respect to speed. One is whether you are likely to have an accident. The other is how likely you are to be injured or killed. Speed in itself on an interstate is unlikely to cause a problem, unless as you say there is a wide variation in speed. But for the guy going 55 to be unsafe, there has to be someone going 80. It seems to me that they are both at fault. However, the guy driving 80 is significantly more likely to die than the guy going 55. Stopping distance goes up as the square of the speed. The 80 MPH car will stop 2.4 times farther down the road than the 55 MPH car. That means when the 55 MPH car stops, the 80 MPH car will have slowed to about 65 MPH. It seems to me that 80 MPH is more dangerous, especially if that dead deer isn’t moving. It doesn’t happen often, but great big road debris is almost impossible to react to at high speeds. I wonder if you are just trying to justify your driving habits?
I’m referring to driving on a 6 lane divided highway like an interstate highway. Sure the speed limit is 55 or 65 MPH in most places, but how often are those speed limits actually abided by? Not often. I’m not debating what’s technically legal; I’m referring to real world scenarios.
Personally, I go by the 85th percentile. I’ll drive at whatever the prevailing speed is. If it’s 65 MPH then I’ll drive 65 MPH. If it’s 85, then I’ll drive 85. I’ve never been in a car accident in my life. I maintain the argument that a person who insists on driving at well below the prevailing speed is creating a dangerous situation for themselves and everyone around them. Likewise someone driving at 85 MPH when the prevailing speed is 60 MPH is also creating a dangerous situation.
You’re missing the point. I’m saying that you’re safer traveling at the prevailing speed. Speed limits don’t have anything to do with it as it the logic could be applied to people traveling under the speed limit as well. Let’s say there’s a road with 55 MPH speed limit. 99% of the cars on the road are going 50 MPH, there’s a couple people driving at 30 MPH. The people driving 30 MPH are creating a hazard to those traveling 50 MPH, but in this admittedly unrealistic scenario, everyone is traveling under the posted speed limit, yet the problem still persists.
In Illinois a camera ticket is not disputable, but also not a moving violation. So you get the ticket but insurance rates don’t go up. It could be thought of as a revenue source but it is big business, as the state only gets a small percentage of the total collections, as I understand the system. I was so much happier paying 75 bucks for 4 hours of traffic school and not have the ticket reported to the insurance agency contingent on no more tickets within a year. Then level 2 if you got another ticket within the year, 150 bucks 8 hours of traffic school, then level 3 judge decides to do another 8 hours of traffic school or make it official.
PS if you look into google maps they have all the intersections with traffic cams. Knowledge is power. But I am older and wiser now I think.
Well, I hear you, FoDaddy, but what’s safer–when the prevailing speed is at 55 in a 55MPH zone, or when the prevailing speed is 80 in a 55MPH zone?
From a purely monetary standpoint, I can’t afford even one stinking ticket, so if I’m in the right lane doing the speed limit, and someone’s “pushing” me from behind, forget it. He’ll have to wait until he can pass me on the left, unless he wants to pay my ticket, which is a pipe dream. Do I go 55 in the left hand lane when the speed limit is 55 and the prevailing speed in that lane is 80? Of course not. Never. These people get ticketed in PA, and rightly so.
“The people driving 30 MPH are creating a hazard to those traveling 50 MPH, but in this admittedly unrealistic scenario, everyone is traveling under the posted speed limit, yet the problem still persists.”
True enough, but the energy involved in any accident in this scenario is much, much less than the scenario with the prevailing speed 80 and one person going 50. It’s high school physics; as the velocity increases from 50 to 80, as an example, that’s an increase in speed of 160%, but the increase in the energy of the crash is 160% squared; 256%.
Should automated cameras be used to enforce the law: Well if it is the law, why should we prevent the police from effectively enforcing it?
Are such cameras an evasion of privacy: How much privacy can you expect on a public street?
Do the cameras make for greater safety: So far I have seen so-called proof from both sides. None of the so called proofs I have seen so far would come close to proofs or even good evidence for either side.
My personal opinion is that they can be effective tools to reduce accidents and should be used in that manor to reduce accidents. legislation to prevent their use would be equal to legislation preventing motorcycle cops from hiding behind billboards.
In the same light we need to be sure our local authorities are setting speed limits and other traffic laws in a way to assure safety, not income. Cameras or no cameras does not get to the problem and that is bad laws and bad drivers who believe they are above the law.
The American Pledge of Allegiance ends with “…with liberty and justice for all.”
How do you think that applies to this debate?
My opinion is that it means when you drive your car in an illegal manner, you should expect justice, and these cameras are nothing more than a tool to apply justice equally.
There is no “explanation” as there has been no “drop in serious collisions”. Many US and international statistics actually show in increase of rear-end accidents at photo enforced intersections. Lots of proof from multiple location studies here:
In many US jurisdictions, there is no recourse from being falsely accused. You are assumed guilty if you receive a photo ticket and there is no process to dispute it. What happened to the US Constitution?
Speed cameras? Wonderful! I have been complaining for FIFTEEN YEARS about folks going 45 - 50 mph in our 24 mph zoned, residential neighborhood: lots of close-calls, lots of dead cats and dogs, lots of crazy drivers - in fact, I would do ANYTHING to have traffic circles, or other “traffic calming” measures used here in town! Unfortunately, the good old boys fix these problems - ONLY when it affects their family (the fixed a dangerous curve, AFTER the mayors grandkid got injured!). Folks who speed are selfish, in a hurry, and have no idea how they affect others - so yes, speed cameras are good - but egotistical, speed-crazed folks don’t want to be told to “slow down” - at least, not when it’s someone else’s neighborhood!
"A motorway speed camera which has increased the number of crashes and injuries at its site is revealed today as the most profitable in Britain.
It is estimated to catch up to 500 drivers a day, generating nearly ?1million a year in fines.
Yet accidents have risen by a quarter and casualties have almost doubled since the Gatso camera was installed on the M11 at its junction with the North Circular A406 near Woodford, Essex."
Full article here:
Just one of many studies confirming that speed camera are all about the money and have nothing to do with driver safety or reducing accidents. I you look deep into how cities report the “reduction of accident” statistics due to speed cameras, you will find that they changed the definition of “accidents” to fit their data.
twotone, that refers to a single speed camera in England, which is hardly conclusive. You know darn well things are quite different here in the USA. How does a study in England apply to Arizona’s roadways, which are nothing like the roads in England? We have different types of roads, different types of cars, different styles of driving, different signage and signals, etc.
What’s wrong, can’t you come up with any evidence that refers to the speed cameras in Arizona, or even in the USA? Can we stop comparing apples to oranges?
All I see are people making excuses for those who want to break the law. When did that become ethical?
American justice is based 1) being able to face your accuser and 2) presumed innocent until proven guilty and 3) having a legal process to challenge your accuser. Many traffic cameras violations have done away with the fundamental rights of our American legal system.
Based on what I have read (in the article we are discussing), you can challenge the ticket and you can face your accuser if you should so choose, just like a normal speeding ticket.
I agree that the accused should have the same rights as someone who was ticketed by an officer. If due process is a part of the process, does that change your mind?
I agree wholeheartedly that using cameras without due process is a violation of rights, so lets include due process. Let’s fix what’s wrong with the system in some places to make it fair.
To make it even more fair, the speed cameras should be set to catch 5 MPH higher than the actual speed limit, so there is no accidental ticketing.
Now the sample size of your study is two? Where can I find a real study conducted by an unbiased researcher?
Having looked over this site, it strikes me as being quite biased. It also strikes me as suspect. I can usually spot an illegitimate site by the lack of a contact information (address and phone number). This one lacks them.
Also, this article refers to this correlation between two accidents as though they have proven a cause-and-effect relationship, but they haven’t.
camerafraud.com has an obvious agenda, and they don’t hide it very well.
I’ve repeated this statement so I apologize for being a johnny one note. You can come up with all the other reasons you want for the success of this exercise but…in case study after case study, the absolute best deterrent to criminal activity or traffic violations, is the assurance of being caught. It’s not education, not the size of the fine not fear of “water boarding”.
If you absolutely knew you were going to get fined just $25 every time you speed, you probably wouldn’t. Why else do drivers blink their lights to others when they see a speed trap. When caught, by camera for sure, driving will be safer if you believe reckless and speeding contributes to highway deaths.
If the cameras work…put them in more places; big brother. It’s just another tool that makes law enforcement more effective for the safety of the law abiding.
And whether they should be used is the same debate I heard when radar was introduced and the challengers thought the police should get behind every potential speeder and time them. I want my tax dollars spent for something other than gas and police overtime. It applies here too. And, the prevailing speed will become the posted speed in short order. And if you have to face your accuser, what good are the security cameras everywhere else and why are they permissible as evidence…
Eventually, we can just post signs saying it is camera monitored after a few years of success…that will save time and money like “beware of dog” in your window.
