fate

I am dubious of the claim I was 10 mph over the limit, but I can neither prove nor disprove it. How could I?

Aren't you usually in this position whenever you get a ticket - whether or not its a camera or a live cop? I got a ticket two weeks ago, and I was convinced I was going the same speed as everyone else..... Cop said I was passing people.
It was a spot where the limit went from 80 KMH down to 60 KMH with no real warning . A typical trap where cops work at their quotas...
I abhore the quotas that traffic cops work towards.... they tend to patrol easy ticketing places - and at a lot of those locations the lower speed is often not warranted.

Additionally at least with a camera we get away from cops who target specific types of cars...

freeman

There is something inherently invasive about having the government be able to examine our every activity in public for possible violations of law that outweighs any utilitarian calculations as to money and lifes saved.

Every activity?
They are monitoring the speed vehicles travel in a specific location, endevouring to reduce the average speeds on the road.
They are doing the same things live police officers do now. Are you saying the activities of the live police officers are an invasion of privacy that shouldn't be toelrated? Or just the cameras?
Because if it makes sense for police to enforce speed laws, and if the speed laws make sense, then isn't it also sensible to try to enforce them as effectively as possible?

freeman3 wrote:There is something inherently invasive about having the government be able to examine our every activity in public for possible violations of law that outweighs any utilitarian calculations as to money and lifes saved. Even if DF went over the speed limit, it doesnt matter-- driving would be incredibly tedious if we had to keep checking our speed constantly (for one thing it would not be safe) to avoid tickets.

Thus the topic--it is invasive.

And, while I'm not sure I wasn't speeding, I'm not sure I was either. It's one thing if I could tell you, "Yep, I did it." I might not like it, but at least I'd know I deserved it. But, the way this was done makes it impossible.

Furthermore, there is no defense.

Let me illustrate: when I was 17, I was driving home from school. I had a couple of friends in the car. I could see the local PD nearly a mile away. I stopped at an intersection (4-way stop sign) and drove, monitoring my speed. I hit about 37 in a 35 and slowed a bit. Instantly, the cop pulled me over and announced I was doing 53 in a 35 mph zone.

I went to court. I did all the preparatory work I could, being all of 17.

The cop didn't show. Case dismissed.

Now, how would that even be possible in the Denver situation? I didn't even know I'd been cited. There was no "red light" to tell me I'd violated the law. I had no idea.

How can that possibly be lawful?

fate

Let me illustrate: when I was 17, I was driving home from school. I had a couple of friends in the car. I could see the local PD nearly a mile away. I stopped at an intersection (4-way stop sign) and drove, monitoring my speed. I hit about 37 in a 35 and slowed a bit. Instantly, the cop pulled me over and announced I was doing 53 in a 35 mph zone.

A well maintained automatic camera wouldn't have failed in this way. Its far more likely to be accurate. And not likely to lie.

fate

How can that possibly be lawful

?
Mechanical devices like cockpit recorders, cameras in meeting rooms, cameras in patrol cars, can be used as evidence in legal cases ....
Whats different about a speed camera?

rickyp wrote:fate

Let me illustrate: when I was 17, I was driving home from school. I had a couple of friends in the car. I could see the local PD nearly a mile away. I stopped at an intersection (4-way stop sign) and drove, monitoring my speed. I hit about 37 in a 35 and slowed a bit. Instantly, the cop pulled me over and announced I was doing 53 in a 35 mph zone.

A well maintained automatic camera wouldn't have failed in this way. Its far more likely to be accurate. And not likely to lie.

fate

How can that possibly be lawful

?
Mechanical devices like @#$! recorders, cameras in meeting rooms, cameras in patrol cars, can be used as evidence in legal cases ....
Whats different about a speed camera?

A still photo and a statement from a technician (I'm sure he gets less than $12/hr. That's why they do this--no cop needed, very low overhead). that I get to see and read two months later?

How can I possibly defend that? What if I'm innocent and they made it all up?

If you can't see the problems with this, I'm not sure how to illustrate it.

Imagine going about your normal life. Two months from today you get a note in the mail saying you sped today and you owe $50.

I'm sure you'd just pay it and not think about it. Or, would you actually feel something?

It's nothing but a revenue raiser. It has no impact on anyone's driving because they didn't get stopped. No cop talked to them.

Where is due process?

Let me try it this way: you're on vacation for a few weeks. Many weeks after you return, the cops show up at your home. They say they've got evidence that you committed a murder on the second day of your vacation. You say, "I'm quite sure I didn't.."

They say, "Well, what were you doing at 12:35 that day?"

You say what?

Do you have any witnesses?

I'm exaggerating to make a point--if you've done nothing wrong, you still might find it difficult to defend yourself given that time delay and no initial contact.

If you think the camera is infallible, well, that presumes no human has access to it, doesn't it?

I am dubious of the claim I was 10 mph over the limit, but I can neither prove nor disprove it. How could I?

What probably happened was that you moved into a zone with a lower speed limit without realising (or you realised but hadn't managed to slow down properly by the time the camera clocked you). Speed cameras are often placed strategically in transitional areas between different speed limit zones for this very reason, because they're the best places to maximise revenue.

well I figured my anecdotal evidence was enough, it's really quite obvious and makes perfect sense but you want documentation of this common sense, don't believe things that make sense, can't trust what I have seen myself? I did not state it as fact, only I wouldn't assume safety was improved, now I WILL make that claim more factual

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-came ... -accidents

Sass, if they are revenue raisers in the UK, how do explain that when police and local authority budgets are being cut, they choose to reduce active cameras. Surely they woukd maintain levels, or even increase them, if they brought money in.

The purpose of speed cameras is the same as the purpose for officers ticketing....
To enforce speed limits enough to provide an inducement to drivers to reduce speeds.
Are cameras more effective at reducing speeds?
objective evidence: (Probably to be dismissed as book learning...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20927736

MAIN RESULTS:
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

I think the main reason people complain about speed cameras is that they get caught...
If you agree with the principle of speed limits, and agree that enforcement of the laws makes sense, how can you disagree with using the safest most efficient ways of enforcing the law?
I'd rather pay a skilled technician than a trained police offficer for a task as simplistic as whats required...And put the police officer on the street or in a public space where their [presence might deter other crimes. And where their training is useful.

sass

What probably happened was that you moved into a zone with a lower speed limit without realising (or you realised but hadn't managed to slow down properly by the time the camera clocked you). Speed cameras are often placed strategically in transitional areas between different speed limit zones for this very reason, because they're the best places to maximise revenue

This is the same strategy followed by uniformed officers with their radars....
Don't blame cameras for the strategy.

fate

How can I possibly defend that? What if I'm innocent and they made it all up?

What if a uniformed officer makes it all up? How can you defend that?
Whats the difference other than the uniformed officers are less efficient?

rickyp wrote:The purpose of speed cameras is the same as the purpose for officers ticketing....
To enforce speed limits enough to provide an inducement to drivers to reduce speeds.
Are cameras more effective at reducing speeds?
objective evidence: (Probably to be dismissed as book learning...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20927736

Hey Forest, perhaps you'd like to meet some trees?

How does it help slow traffic down when you don't find out about it for months? What's more effective in impacting driving practices: a marked car in plain sight or an unmarked van?

Beyond that, the only reason for this is to raise revenues. That's it.

Worse: it is unconstitutional. THAT is my problem with it.

You cannot reasonably defend yourself when you have NO IDEA you did something wrong for weeks. Why is that so hard to understand?

MAIN RESULTS:
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

Bold added because it's NOT CONCLUSIVE!

Further, do you know if these were mobile, undercover cameras? That's what I was "shot" with. How effective are those? Does the survey say? No, it does not.

So, thanks for posting something that may or may not apply and says of itself that it is not conclusive.

I think the main reason people complain about speed cameras is that they get caught...

Really, well, thanks for your opinion, even though it's contra what I said and makes no sense at all. The problem is that you don't know you sped, and therefore cannot defend yourself in court. When a cop lights you up, you look at your speedometer. When a camera takes a picture of you, you don't even know.

If safety was the issue, they would want to pull me over. What if speeding is only the tip of the iceberg? What if I'm high or drunk? A camera can do nothing about that and won't protect anyone else.

It's all about revenue. Anyone but a simpleton can understand that.

If you agree with the principle of speed limits, and agree that enforcement of the laws makes sense, how can you disagree with using the safest most efficient ways of enforcing the law?
I'd rather pay a skilled technician than a trained police offficer for a task as simplistic as whats required...And put the police officer on the street or in a public space where their [presence might deter other crimes. And where their training is useful.

See above. I know it's difficult, but strain your intellect for a change.

fate

How can I possibly defend that? What if I'm innocent and they made it all up?

What if a uniformed officer makes it all up? How can you defend that?
Whats the difference other than the uniformed officers are less efficient?

I've explained that, in part.

Let's see. Why would someone speed?

In a hurry? Camera is fine.

Didn't see the sign? Camera is fine.

Just robbed a bank? Camera is useless.

Just ran over a child in a stolen car? Camera is useless.

Now, back to defense. It's easy. If a cop lies, you can go to court. If a tech lies, you can go to court, but . . . you (unless you are very rare) will have no recollection of the circumstances. How could you? You didn't even know you were ticketed.

You may think this is wonderful.

I think anyone who thinks it is wonderful wants a police state and has the IQ of a cactus.

Of course it has nothing to do with safety, it's nothing more than a money grab. If it were really about safety, then allowing the speeding until a ticket arrived months later does nothing at the moment, why did DF's license not get hit with any points? If it were about safety, you would want to know if the speeder were doing so because he was drunk/high, if the car was stolen, if he had insurance/registration/inspection, if he were running from a crime, if you want to keep the people safe, if that is the goal, then you simply must accept the speeder be pulled over and quite possibly removed from his vehicle. If however it were a money grab, then you would do ...exactly what is being done now!

GMTom wrote:Of course it has nothing to do with safety, it's nothing more than a money grab. If it were really about safety, then allowing the speeding until a ticket arrived months later does nothing at the moment, why did DF's license not get hit with any points? If it were about safety, you would want to know if the speeder were doing so because he was drunk/high, if the car was stolen, if he had insurance/registration/inspection, if he were running from a crime, if you want to keep the people safe, if that is the goal, then you simply must accept the speeder be pulled over and quite possibly removed from his vehicle. If however it were a money grab, then you would do ...exactly what is being done now!

And, if it's about safety they would add points to the driver's record! Get the unsafe drivers off the road! Make their insurance go up so they will slow down!

About safety? Raise the fines! Make it hurt! Instead, it's $50.

They try to make it as painless as possible . . . because they just want the money.

But if you made the fine say $500 instead of $50, then people would not be able to pay. Instead it's a easily paid fine that does not add points to your license. This now becomes more a way to let those who can afford to speed that ability to do so at a small cost. But absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, they seem to want to encourage this type of behavior in order to get more income!

GMTom wrote:But if you made the fine say $500 instead of $50, then people would not be able to pay. Instead it's a easily paid fine that does not add points to your license. This now becomes more a way to let those who can afford to speed that ability to do so at a small cost. But absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, they seem to want to encourage this type of behavior in order to get more income!

Oh, sure, they'd be able to pay it . . . but, someone might take the time to fight it--and that's what they want to avoid.