Au contraire, mon frere. I’ve lived in Germany for seven years now. You’re right in the sense that in Germany you need more than a pulse and a detectable IQ to get your fuerershein. But there is no noticable difference between talker/drivers here and in the States. And with reference to cup holders, most cars 2000 and newer feature them. That way they can dispense with two assembly lines, one for U.S. bound cars and one for other lands.
Twotone, your analysis is fundamentally flawed. A speed camera is a tool to gather evidence, in the same manner of fingerprint tape and cotton swabs used in the gathering of DNA evidence. The accuser is the State, not the camera or the organization that installs and or operates the camera. The due process is exercised in court and in the analysis of the manner in which evidence was gathered.
The title is an obvious attempt to create a bias before the article is even read. What I have seen in other venues is that 70% of the people support the speed % red light cameras, thought they want the signs warning of the presence of the cameras removed for safety reasons.
Two typos were in my earlier post. The corrected verion is as follows: The title is an obvious attempt to create a bias before the article is even read. What I have seen in other venues is that 70% of the people support the speed and red light cameras, though the people want the signs warning of the presence of the cameras removed for safety reasons.
I can speak only from experience. When the freeway cameras were first installed in the Phoenix area - Scottsdale to be specific- I noticed that people suddenly were driving generally right around the speed limit. It was a pleasant change from the crazed driving seen generally before. It was truly noticeable.
Then some issues arose about the sites and then more about the likelihood of the penalty actually being imposed. Things stayed reasonable for a bit, but then gradually changed back, but not as bad, to the agressive driving norm. Still, even now, there are far fewer weaving jackasses.
IMO, they did have a positive impact on safety. The best thing they do is nail the menaces clocked 20 mph or more over, even up to 120 mph, and the scofflaws who accumulate 15 or more tickets. They get special attention.
Fianlly, what is wrong about wanting to earn money from folks who chose not to follow tha law? Sounds OK to me, unless you think there should be no speed limits on the urban freeway, which were not designed for autobahn speeds.
The title is an obvious attempt to create a bias before the article is even read. What I have seen in other venues is that 70% of the people, when polled, support the speed and red light cameras, though the people want the signs warning of the presence of the cameras removed for safety reasons.
Why does everyone get mad at the speed and traffic light cameras? You are looking at the wrong end.
Really now does anyone really believe that those cameras are not accurate?
How about this:
You say you should not be ticketed for what you did. OK then let’s go to the real problem, the speed limit is too low or we should not have traffic lights or maybe just eliminate the laws regulating traffic lights making them optional.
How does the title indicate bias?
The backlash is indeed intense, and the title doesn’t indicate whether the cameras, or the backlash, are good or bad.
They would not be collecting revenue if people obeyed the red lights and speed laws. I have had more close calls here when someone runs a red light and I happen to have a green. I wish they would put red light cameras in this state.
It seems to me that the only people that are against the cameras are the ones that like to speed.
If you are following the law, you shouldn’t have any problem with the cameras. Besides the speeding, the cameras can also catch you talking on you cellphone and/or texting.
IF YOU’RE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG, THEN THERE’S NO PROBLEM. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out, DUH.
In principle, I agree with you. However, allow me to play devil’s advocate.
The argument “If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” has been used to justify the violation of people’s rights many times. For example, if you are being questioned by police, and you choose to exercise your 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights, you might hear the argument, “If you aren’t guilty, you don’t need a lawyer.” or “If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by answering our questions.” The truth is, though, that even if you are innocent, the smartest thing you can do is exercise your constitutional rights. Many people see these cameras the same way. The fact that the cameras are only intended to be used to catch the guilty doesn’t justify the erosion of anyone’s rights, guilty or innocent. Benjamin Franklin once said (and I am paraphrasing), those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.
The unintended consequences of the idiotic 55 MPH national speed limit continue to ripple thru our society and will continue to do so for decades.
For those of you too young to remember, a small number of “safety” extremists tried for decades to get the 55 MPH speed limit passed without any success. Even though the cooked the figures and invented self-serving statistics, they couldn’t make a convincing case for it. Then came the the '70s oil embargo and a temporary gas shortage that had people lined up at the pumps, and the 55 MPH national speed limit was rushed thru congress as a means to save oil. A year later, the oil supplies were back to normal, but it took decades to get the 55 MPH national speed limit repealed.
Now, we have a culture where the majority of drivers grew up and got their licenses where the de facto speed limit was really 15 MPH more than what’s posted. The average american driver feels entitled to exceed the speed limit by at least 10 MPH, and this culture is not going to change easily.
The article also mentions (but it wasn’t quoted above) that one of these photo-radar vehicles had 5 shots pumped into it, killing the operator. I’d call that armed rebellion.
The moral is that bad laws, no matter how well intentioned, have serious consequences that harm society for decades.
Yes, I really do believe those camera-radar systems aren’t accurate. (BTW, a camera can’t tell what your speed is, there has to be a radar unit involved as well. The article mentions that the system is camera+radar, but doesn’t go into the details.)
Everyone knows speed radar systems are fallible. Speed radar guns have been demonstrated to measure trees going at 40 MPH.
The “Intense Backlash” is against Government intrusion period…While I do not agree with The Teabaggers on many issues, they are correct when they point out that we have reached the saturation point with Government controls on our lives.
These “traffic control” devices are almost always operated by private companies who split the take with whatever “jurisdiction” the camera happens to be located…One for me, one for you…It’s not “traffic control”…Is a guaranteed, monopoly, money-making business. THAT’s what the outrage is about…
Next thing you know, there will be drone camera planes monitoring your backyard activities, making sure you are not watering your lawn or garden on even numbered days, counting your dogs, making sure you are not repairing any “derelict” cars…KaaChing, KaaaChing, KaaChing…Oh, and the assessor wants to know why you did not pull a permit for that new patio and spa…KaaChing…
Speed Cameras are just the tip of the iceberg…
Statistics is the science of creating numbers to suit your desired model of reality. I have been searching for years on how speed limits are determined as such godly absolute values. Rather than right vs wrong, its more like a game of “Simon says” and has little to do with public safety. There is no scientific methodology.
The US constitution 5th amendment guarantees your right to cross examine witnesses in a criminal proceeding. If the sole witness is a machine or a camera, this doesn’t work out very well. Such evidence can be tampered with and accuracy can be challenged. Municipalities have skirted around this by pursuing this as a civil action. The requirement of proof is significantly lower, defense is more difficult, and a civil judgment is just as lucrative as a criminal fine. Many traffic tickets have a check box where the issuing office notes criminal or civil which changes the rules.
wagonfan, I don’t think you have read everything I have written in this thread. I stated that if the motivation is revenue collection and not safety, and it can be proven, I will reconsider my position. I only support them where they have lowered mortality, and frankly, I care more about saving lives than about you getting to work 20 minutes faster than you would otherwise.
You are beating a dead horse, all because you skimmed the material instead of actually reading it. Go back. Take a look. If you can prove any of your opinionated claims, please do so. I am keeping an open mind and waiting for the proof.
And to address an earlier comment, Whitey, I’m sure your father’s work determining speed limits was anything but arbitrary, but that has nothing to do with safe speeds… So yes, he probably went down the matrix of roads, saw what kind of road it was, what little town it went through, consulted the local police/tax revenue office, and applied the politically mandated speed limit.
[i]One more thing, wagonfan. My late father was an ethical and fastidious civil engineer, and I will not tolerate your accusations that he was corrupt or performed his job in a slipshod manner. Man up and learn some manners.[/i]
wagonfan, maybe you didn’t suggest my father took bribes, but you did suggest he allowed political influences to prejudice his engineering recommendations. You may not see this kind of attack on his integrity as offensive, but I do.
Leave my father out of your assumptions of how traffic engineers do their jobs. You know absolutely nothing about how they conduct their studies.
No, I didn’t. I suggested that the political system surrounding speed limit determination often prevents traffic engineers, like your father, from doing their jobs to the best of their ability and skill level. I fail to see how you don’t understand that. I respect your fathers contributions and work, and if you keep blindly flagging my statements, I’m just going to keep reposting them because they do not fly afoul of the discussion rules, and if you are unable to maintain a civil level of discourse, try to at least let the rest of the readers judge my statements and opinions on their validity, separate from your obvious respect for your father and his body of work. (from the rules: Some topics require blunt talk, and we’re not always going to agree with each other. Nevertheless, please try to disagree without being disagreeable. Focus your remarks on positions, not personalities. No personal attacks, name calling, libel, defamation, comments about someone’s mother, hate speech, comparisons to notorious dictators ? you get the idea).
And I see you failed to address any of the other points of my statement. So here it is again in all its glory…
I fail to see your proof, so I’ll call you out as well. The burden of proof does not lie on the defendant. You want to prove cameras are effective, you find a long range study investigating multiple jurisdictions, states, countries, and methods, all pointing to reduced accidents and incidents of speeding, and maybe I’ll start to believe you. Instead, you have one article from NPR on one state’s efforts to use speed cameras. You fail to recognize that in many locations; injuries, deaths, and crashes may have actually gone up. Nor does the article address the long term effectiveness of speed cameras, the glut of technology now available to monitor, avoid, and defraud cameras, or possible decreases in safety and revenue as the population adjusts their driving around camera sites. Or how about this, you prove that revenue is not the major driver when a jurisdiction decides to implement speed cameras.
Additionallly, I in no way said you father was corrupt or performed his job in a slipshod manner! You skipped the meat of that paragraph in your quote (handy). My exact words… “I’m sure your father’s work determining speed limits was anything but arbitrary, but that has nothing to do with safe speeds. Speed limits =/= the safe speed. In fact, I’m pretty sure speed limits (not safe speed) on most American roads are determined by location and road type (# of lanes, shoulders, limited access…), not design (road bed depth, lane width, percent grade, trun radius, signage, merge length, visibility, etc.). So yes, he [edit. not just him] probably went down the matrix of roads, saw what kind of road it was, what little town it went through, consulted the local police/tax revenue office, and applied the politically MANDATED!!! [edit. emphasis added] speed limit.” So unless you can prove me wrong, you are no better than I. Look up most state DMV laws/websites, go ahead! I bet you’ll find that road speed limits are determined by exactly, or very nearly, what I mentioned. Not the actual road DESIGN!
Nowhere does it say he lowered the speed limit because the cops bribed him, that he conducted his work poorly, or that he was corrupt? Your accusations are baseless. I’m an ethical and fastidious engineer and architect as well, and I know the limits that political intervention place on my work, often to the detrement of the product.
I continued “That is why so many road/civil engineers are probably banging their head on their desks when their careful work designing a beautiful high speed road is slapped with an arbitrary 55mph limit, because people can’t get past the mantra that speed kills.”
It is a mantra, speed doesn’t kill, drivers kill. Drivers drinking, drivers being unattentive kill, drivers speeding in inappropriate conditions kill, drivers failing to maintain their equipment kill, drivers yelling at children, drivers day dreaming, drivers not understanding their car’s handling, etc, etc etc… Don’t believe for a second that it is impossible to move in a vehicle at a significant rate safely, even if it is outside the legal limit. Billions of people a day speed, and even if one person in the world didnt’ speed, there would still be deaths on our roadways.
Well, if it’s a “mantra,” how can I argue with that? The fact that it is a “mantra” settles everything definitively, right? Great job proving me wrong! [/sarcasm]
wagonfan, I STILL don’t think you have read everything I have written in this thread. I only support speed cameras where they have been proven to lower mortality. You are beating a dead horse…repeatedly.
I am not going to argue with you because doing so would be to argue against points I have already made and agreed with in this discussion.
The opportunity for meaningful debate and learning passed more than two months ago, when I conceded to several valid opposing points made. Why would you want to relive that discussion, but in your obviously abrasive manner? I don’t see the point.
The best point made is the the Arizona speed cameras are set to catch people going more than 11 miles per hour over the speed limit. Even where they have speed cameras, you can still speed, just not excessively. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. However, no matter how reasonable you are, there will always be some person out there with whom reasonable compromise isn’t possible. Are you one of those people?
“However, no matter how reasonable you are, there will always be some person out there for whom reasonable compromise isn’t possible. Are you one of them?” You love personnal attacks don’t you… And in my commute, the autobahn run we call Route 50 into Washington DC, a car moving at just 11 mph above the limit, is still relegated to the right lane, and I would be hard pressed to believe so many people would consider their speeds excessive or unsafe.
And no, I will not yeild against traffic cameras, but I will compromise. How about instead of paying a private company to maintain and deploy cameras of limited effectiveness, you hire more police officers. Even just one or two, who are then free to monitor traffic safety, as well as public safety, and be challenged fairly, legally, and effectively in court? This is especially true if you realize that a vast majority of accidents are not caused by speeding. The one study I quickly looked up actually showed more accidents and fatal events occured at speeds under the speed limit (due to weather, traffic, etc), for which speed cameras provide no usefulness at all, whereas patrolling officers do.
You said (yes, I did read) “For one thing, even if the increase in fatalities was negligible, there would still be an increase. How do you explain to someone that the death of her or his loved one is statistically insignificant”. So how would you feel about an accident, even a non fatal one, caused by the placement of a speed camera?