What I'm getting at is the speeder will not simply fork over the money and, if the fine were substantial might cause drivers to speed less often. Instead we have a situation designed to not stop speeding but rather one to maximize profit. Make it an affordable luxury and they will continue to speed (and pay pay pay)

Ricky:

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

I'm not blaming the cameras, just suggesting to Steve why it is that he may have been legitimately travelling 10mph above the limit without having realised when he got his ticket.

I do disagree with the strategy though, whether it's carried out by uniformed cops or static cameras. I've seen too many cameras or manned speed traps that are placed in areas that aren't really a major accident risk but are very likely to maximise the number of hits they make. Typically you'll see them in zones where the speed limit drops suddenly from 60 to 30 so they can catch unwary drivers who may not have managed to reduce their speed in time. This kind of thing is just cynical in my view. I'd have no problem if they wanted to erect speed cameras outside of every school in the land or if they put them up in notorious accident blackspots, that's just sensible policing, but too often you see them in spots that don't serve any purpose other than to trap people who aren't doing much wrong in areas where a little extra speed isn't really going to cause any harm.

The principle of cameras to catch speeding motorists isn't a problem for me at all btw. I understand that Tom and DF have some kind of issues with it on constitutional grounds or something but it's commonplace here in the UK. Ultimately speeding is against the law and so long as the technology is reliable you shouldn't have too much of a problem with them taking steps to enforce it. There are limits though. If the police are widely seen to be using the technology in a cynical fashion, and I think they are, then that's a pretty good indicator that they've crossed the line and should rein it back, or at least target their use of cameras more carefully.

Sassenach wrote:Ricky:

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

I'm not blaming the cameras, just suggesting to Steve why it is that he may have been legitimately travelling 10mph above the limit without having realised when he got his ticket.

I do disagree with the strategy though, whether it's carried out by uniformed cops or static cameras. I've seen too many cameras or manned speed traps that are placed in areas that aren't really a major accident risk but are very likely to maximise the number of hits they make. Typically you'll see them in zones where the speed limit drops suddenly from 60 to 30 so they can catch unwary drivers who may not have managed to reduce their speed in time. This kind of thing is just cynical in my view. I'd have no problem if they wanted to erect speed cameras outside of every school in the land or if they put them up in notorious accident blackspots, that's just sensible policing, but too often you see them in spots that don't serve any purpose other than to trap people who aren't doing much wrong in areas where a little extra speed isn't really going to cause any harm.

The principle of cameras to catch speeding motorists isn't a problem for me at all btw. I understand that Tom and DF have some kind of issues with it on constitutional grounds or something but it's commonplace here in the UK. Ultimately speeding is against the law and so long as the technology is reliable you shouldn't have too much of a problem with them taking steps to enforce it. There are limits though. If the police are widely seen to be using the technology in a cynical fashion, and I think they are, then that's a pretty good indicator that they've crossed the line and should rein it back, or at least target their use of cameras more carefully.

As far as I can tell, this was not a static camera and this is not posted. The camera is in a van.

sass

Ultimately speeding is against the law and so long as the technology is reliable you shouldn't have too much of a problem with them taking steps to enforce it. There are limits though. If the police are widely seen to be using the technology in a cynical fashion, and I think they are, then that's a pretty good indicator that they've crossed the line and should rein it back, or at least target their use of cameras more carefully.

I agree entirely.
However I'll also point out that cops with radar guns can be just as cynical. Indeed, if they are given quotas, they get reall cynical.
I'll also suggest that unrealistcally low speed limits contribute to the "fairness" perception. That is that going 120 KPH on the 401 (M6 equivalent) is whay 95% of motorists do - even though the limit is 100.
Because its safe to do so . Except in bad weather. Police don't ticket unless you are exceeding that.... Which makes the posted limit a farce ...

I understand that for Fate it seems to be an issue of fairness.
But on a macro level, if limits make sense and that the indications from third party research are that omnipresent speed cameras do affect overall speed rates leading to fewer accidents - then the more efficient system is cameras.
I grant that ooccassionally a speeding motorist is stopped and found guilty of something else ... But these occassions can't be that great. All professional bank robbers know better than to avoid driving erratically following a crime... And the liklihood that someone drunk or drugged being stopped by a speed trap is certainly less than that they be reported by another motorist (cell phone use ironically) and stopped by patrol officers (not bogged down by holding a radar gun).
People who complain most about speed cameras are habitual speeders.

[quote="rickyp"

I understand that for Fate it seems to be an issue of fairness.
But on a macro level, if limits make sense and that the indications from third party research are that omnipresent speed cameras do affect overall speed rates leading to fewer accidents - then the more efficient system is cameras.
I grant that ooccassionally a speeding motorist is stopped and found guilty of something else ... But these occassions can't be that great. All professional bank robbers know better than to avoid driving erratically following a crime... And the liklihood that someone drunk or drugged being stopped by a speed trap is certainly less than that they be reported by another motorist (cell phone use ironically) and stopped by patrol officers (not bogged down by holding a radar gun).
People who complain most about speed cameras are habitual speeders.[/quote]

Admit it: you're not even reading.

The camera is not fixed. There are no signs warning of cameras. So, the objective CANNOT be to slow people down.

Again, if it was, the fine would not be $50. They would add points to your record. They would want you to feel the sting of speeding.

So, they don't care about safety--or, are not employing these units to enhance safety. So, why are they employing them?

I suppose the argument would be that the presence of unmarked cameras is intended to act as a deterrant to speeding anywhere in the city, not just in the areas where there are known to be cameras. Can't say as I really buy this though.

Sassenach wrote:I suppose the argument would be that the presence of unmarked cameras is intended to act as a deterrant to speeding anywhere in the city, not just in the areas where there are known to be cameras. Can't say as I really buy this though.

And, again, nothing says "deterrent" like: $50 and no points on your license. So draconian!

Quickly, rickyp: it's not about "fairness," it's about Constitutionality. I have the right to confront my accuser. How do I do that when I have no way of knowing that I committed a violation for two months?

I lived in Denver up until about 6 years ago, and they had those traffic enforcement vans back then, too. I recall that there was a portable traffic sign that they put up about a block before the van. I don't recall exactly what it said, maybe something fairly vague like "Traffic Control Zone Ahead". I also remember occasionally hearing a morning traffic report on the radio that would include the locations of the vans that day.

So, DF, maybe it was posted, and you just didn't notice the sign. Not that it makes much difference as to the fairness or "un" thereof.

Bob

fate

The camera is not fixed. There are no signs warning of cameras. So, the objective CANNOT be to slow people down.

Telling people that there are speed cameras in a fixed location....people will slow down in that fixed location.
Telling people that there are cameras on the roads in varying locations ... gets people to slow down generally. The difference with automatic cameras is there efficient operation. They can find far more speeders in an hour than a standing radar site who a patrol car - who have to stop the car (often risking accidents when they do this...)
But if the objective is to generally slow traffic down then their potential presence anywhere should be well advertised ...
As for facing your accusser ...
If the ticket is coming directly to you you have that option. You can always choose court...
However: to beat it, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that there is a flaw (like the radar on the camera is miscalibrated, or that the license plate is not for your car). Other than that, little chance of getting out of it.

If its coming to you from a rental company, I think you're screwed.

The reason that there are no points coming from automatic cameras is that yoy can't identify the driver in the photo. And to be punished on that level they need to identify the driveer.
But if you are the owner of the car, you have a responsibility for the car and who you let drive the car.

Yeah, I suspect the constitutionality issue is a red herring. Most crimes and misdemeanours won't reach the prosecution stage until a long time after the event so this isn't really any different. You can still face your accuser in court if you want to in this situation, it's just that it would generally be more trouble than it's worth.

That said, DF does have a point. This scheme does seem designed to catch a lot of people doing not much wrong in a fashion that's going to raise quite a lot of money for the municipality without really having any kind of meaningful impact on public safety. It's possible to try and justify it on the grounds that Ricky just set out but I think that's a pretty spurious justification. I don't think this is wholly about money making but clearly there are much better ways to tackle speeding than this if the intent were really to slow people down.

rickyp wrote:fate

The camera is not fixed. There are no signs warning of cameras. So, the objective CANNOT be to slow people down.

Telling people that there are speed cameras in a fixed location....people will slow down in that fixed location.
Telling people that there are cameras on the roads in varying locations ... gets people to slow down generally. The difference with automatic cameras is there efficient operation. They can find far more speeders in an hour than a standing radar site who a patrol car - who have to stop the car (often risking accidents when they do this...)

There is no risk of accident, if the officers are trained properly.

Yes, it's very efficient--and I think illegal. It would be more "efficient" to drive by hookers and send them notices in the mail telling them when they were seen doing their work too. But, that wouldn't be quite legal.

In this case, stealth speeding tickets . . . I think, eventually, they will be challenged and found wanting. It will only take one false ticket to toss out the whole system.

But if the objective is to generally slow traffic down then their potential presence anywhere should be well advertised ...

Yeah, but it's not. And, if you knew much about Denver, you'd know that you would not want to do it "everywhere." There aren't that many suitable locations.

As for facing your accusser ...
If the ticket is coming directly to you you have that option. You can always choose court...
However: to beat it, you would have to demonstrate conclusively that there is a flaw (like the radar on the camera is miscalibrated, or that the license plate is not for your car). Other than that, little chance of getting out of it.

Just wrong. Taking the best case scenario it would be a week before you received notice--and I doubt that. For people who drive daily, I believe it is markedly unfair. If you drive the same route every day can you guarantee you'll remember every moment of every drive a week later?

I doubt that.

If its coming to you from a rental company, I think you're screwed.

Which doesn't help the State's legal burden. I wonder if I can draw your attention to these words, "presumed innocent."

The State can do no wrong in your eyes. That's fine.

Sassenach wrote:Yeah, I suspect the constitutionality issue is a red herring. Most crimes and misdemeanours won't reach the prosecution stage until a long time after the event so this isn't really any different. You can still face your accuser in court if you want to in this situation, it's just that it would generally be more trouble than it's worth.

Normally, you make good points. This is not one of them.

If you're just driving along, why would you remember what was happening? How can anyone possibly defend against this? Tell me.

What if I was not speeding? It is impossible for me to disprove an allegation that was not brought to my attention in a timely fashion. Impossible.

That said, DF does have a point. This scheme does seem designed to catch a lot of people doing not much wrong in a fashion that's going to raise quite a lot of money for the municipality without really having any kind of meaningful impact on public safety.

Thank you for grasping what rickyp cannot. I don't think this is a program that really even pretends to be about public safety. You want to slow people down? Put marked cars and officers with radar guns and watch what happens--people are terrified to speed.

Unmarked vans roaming about? Tickets in the mail?

Almost no impact.

What if I was not speeding? It is impossible for me to disprove an allegation that was not brought to my attention in a timely fashion. Impossible.

This is true, but it applies to all cases where you get charged with speeding no matter the method involved. It comes down to the reliability of the technology. If the cameras or radar guns or whatever are generally regarded as being accurate then a judge will always favour them over the word of a driver. The only way you could ever prove your innocence would be to have some kind of car-based equivalent of the black box flight recorder on board. I'm generally a pretty slow driver and not likely to be speeding, but there are a lot of roads round here where it's not always clear if I'm in a 30 or 40 zone. Because the difference between those two speeds is not really very appreciable to a driver you could stop me 2 mins after the fact and tell me I'd been doing 40 in a 30 zone and I probably wouldn't be able to remember. Certainly I couldn't prove it.

I fully agree with your point about fairness but I suspect you'd find that this would be ruled not to be illegal. You'd probably have to rely on some kind of common law reasonableness grounds, but it would be a precarious case and as you say, not worth the effort.

Sassenach wrote:

What if I was not speeding? It is impossible for me to disprove an allegation that was not brought to my attention in a timely fashion. Impossible.

This is true, but it applies to all cases where you get charged with speeding no matter the method involved. It comes down to the reliability of the technology. If the cameras or radar guns or whatever are generally regarded as being accurate then a judge will always favour them over the word of a driver.

I disagree with you here Sass. It's the difference between having an intervening action to fix the incident in your mind and not. If I am driving down the highway and a police officer pulls me over and gives me a ticket, I am more likely to remember the exact time and place that I was driving to say no I was not speeding, I was driving with the flow of traffic, etc even if the hearing date is months later.

However, on the other hand, if I am driving down the highway and then 2 months later get a ticket, you are less likely to remember the specifics in order to mount a defense.

Additionally, the negatives of speed cameras over live police is less likely to stop a drunk driver before he causes an accident as that most people caught driving drunk are done so because they violated some other traffic law, i.e. speeding, running a red light.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Sassenach wrote:

What if I was not speeding? It is impossible for me to disprove an allegation that was not brought to my attention in a timely fashion. Impossible.

This is true, but it applies to all cases where you get charged with speeding no matter the method involved. It comes down to the reliability of the technology. If the cameras or radar guns or whatever are generally regarded as being accurate then a judge will always favour them over the word of a driver.

I disagree with you here Sass. It's the difference between having an intervening action to fix the incident in your mind and not. If I am driving down the highway and a police officer pulls me over and gives me a ticket, I am more likely to remember the exact time and place that I was driving to say no I was not speeding, I was driving with the flow of traffic, etc even if the hearing date is months later.

However, on the other hand, if I am driving down the highway and then 2 months later get a ticket, you are less likely to remember the specifics in order to mount a defense.

Additionally, the negatives of speed cameras over live police is less likely to stop a drunk driver before he causes an accident as that most people caught driving drunk are done so because they violated some other traffic law, i.e. speeding, running a red light.

Perfect, thank you! Well said!

Additionally, I will tell you (all) that traffic court is somewhat unpredictable. I generally appeared before 2 judges. One would nearly always side with the officers. The other was his evil twin--almost never believing the officers.

Furthermore, although it was not the case in my situation, there may be witnesses available to me, or evidence of some kind--all of which are rendered useless by such a delay in being informed of the incident.

Eventually, this sort of thing will be challenged. I don't know if it can withstand legal scrutiny. It may, but I'm dubious.

Something to consider:

If Denver is so determined to fill its coffers with unearned loot, it might as well deputize a troupe of pickpockets and deploy them on the 16th Street Mall. At least then there'd be no pretense of serving the public interest. Instead, the city's photo radar enforcement program serenely assures us that they choose sites "based on best use of resources and complaint areas" and to "increase public safety."
If only. It's hard to take such claims seriously when photo-radar vans seem parked habitually where the pickings are easy — say, because the posted speed is well below traffic flow or indeed lower than adjoining stretches of the same road.
For what it's worth, Denver ranks fifth nationally on a list of 25 cities "with the highest number of speed trap locations over the past two years," according to the National Motorists Association. The NMA's list relies upon motorist reports as opposed to scientific surveys and so should be taken with caution. Yet there is no doubt that the photo-radar law is routinely abused — in terms of where and how contractor vans are deployed, the visibility of warning signs, and the way the public is misled about the law itself.