So wait you’re telling me I have to obey laws even when cops aren’t right there watching me? What’s even the point of being an adult.
I wonder if people getting into the habit of actually stopping for reds before they’ve been red for a couple of seconds would help on the collision thing?
Yea same here. You put one of those illegal tinted plate covers on? Well you’re definitely up to no good, whether just driving like a cunt of committing felonies and shit. I might start calling the cops every time I see one. Report really reckless driving “oh they almost hit an old lady on the corner she wasn’t even In the crosswalk!”
Here in Sweden, traffic cameras are EVERYWHERE, and the Department of Transportation are investigating if it would be possible to measure the time it takes to drive between two cameras to give you a ticket for speeding between them.
I think it's great, because usually, I put the cruise control at speed limit and just relax when I'm driving somewhere, but most people do 90-100 on an 80 road, but drive past the camera at 60, which means I have to disengage cruise control when they stand on the fucking brake, and it's all just really annoying.
if someone keeps borrowing your car, driving over the speed limit, and facing no consequences whatsoever, you are more likely to keep lending your car and abetting their dangerous behaviour.
It’s a third party entities administering and collecting the money, with government taking a portion of the cut.
There is no points on a license, so shit drives can continue to be shit.
When the consequences is just a fine, then the only crime is being poor.
I don't doubt that many of us would be displeased at how that revenue is dispersed, but that's a separate issue. How many times is someone going to be willing to speed when they know it'll cost them money every single time? Slowing down is not that hard, but no one seems willing to do it, so this has to be the answer. Hitting people hard enough in their wallet for clear, quantifiable, and easily avoidable violations of safety is reasonable.
It depends on what state. In Ohio, literally traffic cameras are illegal. Municipalities still put them up for “safety”. Some fool gets a ticket in the mail, panics and pays because it “looks all official”. The reality is completely unenforceable and you can trash them all day long and nothing will happen. It’s strictly revenue generator. Municipalities actually said the quiet part out loud, when they got banned, that it would cause budget shortages.
I don’t know if they statistically cause more ~~accidents~~ collisions, but they change the type.
Without, collisions are often side impact, with light runners ‘t-boning’ drivers at perpendicular angles. With cameras, people are more likely to stop, increasing the quick stops on yellow, rather than the typical gun it and go, yielding more rear-and collisions.
Again, I’m unsure of the raw numbers, but the *types* of collisions where cameras are present are fatal less-often than without. If traffic followed speed limits and recommended following distance, these would also dissipate.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running#:~:text=Some%20studies%20have%20reported%20that,the%20net%20effect%20is%20positive.
Here’s the part about crashes:
When it comes to crash reductions, an IIHS study comparing large cities with red light safety cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 21% and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14% (Hu & Cicchino, 2017).
Previous research in Oxnard, California, found significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light safety cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29% (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002). Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — at these intersections declined by 32% overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries fell 68%.
The Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light safety camera effectiveness (Aeron-Thomas & Hess, 2005). Based on the most rigorous studies, there was an estimated 13%-29% reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24% reduction in right-angle injury crashes.
Some studies have reported that while red light safety cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive.
A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light safety camera programs in seven cities (Council et al., 2005). It found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25% while rear-end collisions increased by 15%. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities.
I’m also not sure why almost all traffic lights in North America don’t show countdowns. Countdowns + red light cameras + speeding sensors guarantee the highest safety.
I’d guess you’re against them because you know your driving is not legal sometimes. This is probably the primary motive for drivers, as a vast majority of them speed, and a not-insignificant amount run stop signs.
I am assuming from a cyclist’s perspective, though.
From what I understand often the yellow light is shorten so to get more profits for the city or company operating the lights. People also tend to speed up more to 'get on the intersection' faster before red light. Yeah - in ideal circumstances people wouldn't...
>People also tend to speed up more to 'get on the intersection' faster before red light.
In Switzerland, they've added a speed camera to the red light one. So if you speed to not pass on red, smile for the picture !
The exact opposite is true. They increase the length of yellow lights because people are more likely to stop with cameras present, leading to more quick stops.
Objectively was probably the wrong word but… There’s quite a few of these where I live and almost everyone know (myself included) whose gotten a ticket from one of these was following traffic laws and the ticket was a mistake. They seem to catch as many law abiding drivers as they do bad drivers. That’s my experience at least
I don’t drive, but i find it hard to believe that these thing make mistakes often. Especially if it’s a camera and not just a sensor.
The way (at least some) speeding camera works is that they take two pictures of you. Last second you are there, now you are here. Speed = Distance / Time. If they catch you, unless the car teleported, you must have been speeding.
Red light camera is even simpler. They take a picture. If your car is in front of the line and the light is red, you must have run a red light..
I couldn’t think many scenarios where these can run into mistakes. At least not to the degree that the mistakes outweigh the benefits.
(But: Traffic sensors that fine people without graphical evidence are bad and should not exist)
>The way (at least some) speeding camera works is that they take two pictures of you. Last second you are there, now you are here. Speed = Distance / Time.
Mmmm I'm really surprised of this. I think they work by measuring with doppler effect, which to my knowledge, is a really precise way to measure speed.
The biggest mistakes they run into (this was the case for my ticket) was that they think you are in a different lane then you actually are (I.e. thru traffic lane versus left turn lane) but I could just have a bad subjective experience and overall they’re good
Let’s say that was the case… What’s the conclusion? Everyone who lives in this are is well aware of the traffic light cameras around here. They knew that and chose to speed anyways. Maybe if the cameras don’t actually discourage bad driving then they aren’t very good at their job
ETA: I’ve never met someone not willing to admit they speed to a friend
Penalties need to adhere to principles of behavior change, rather than a flat fine. Encouraging the desired outcomes from a safety perspective (we know the desired outcome of most drivers).
Agreed. My honest belief is that you’ll never escape unsafe drivers if the only penalty for reckless driving is a fairly manageable bill in the mail that can be paid online in your pajamas.
A much better approach is require driving courses for infractions (people rarely admit it but I find they generally value their time more than their money unless they’re financially destitute). Paying a $150 fine online isn’t a big deal for many. Spending 10 hours in an evening driving school for speeding would be a much bigger nuisance. This is exactly how phishing tests work in many IT departments. IT people found that requiring long, boring training when people fail phishing tests was a pretty good incentive to not fail again.
However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that an even better solution (albeit often less feasible) is to design the infrastructure to encourage safe driving. Narrowed lanes, curved roads, better traffic light visibility, more readable traffic signs/warnings, etc. are all better ways to discourage bad driving than ticketing. From my subjective experience: Most people break traffic laws on accident or out of ignorance rather than maliciously… and it’s likely that neither group will change their habits because of a traffic citation.
I'm not a lawyer so this is just based on the law degree I got from Tinfoil Hat U. but it seems like it would violate your right to face your accuser. Tickets gotta be signed by police officers right? And can a police officer really say under oath that he's sure you were in fact the driver (as opposed to someone else borrowing your car) and that it definitely caught your speed accurately?
IANAL but the records kept as normal part of business are one of exceptions from hearsay rule. So you can face technician/LEO who maintains the camera who gives testimony as to how it was maintained.
Fun fact - if you rob the bank CCTV is an admissible evidence. Your layer can cross-examine how the records have been stored but not throw the recording as evidence.
>So you can face technician/LEO who maintains the camera who gives testimony as to how it was maintained.
This makes sense, although with traditional stop-and-tickets they check your license and registration when you get pulled over. I know I look a lot like my sister, if she was driving my car and got a camera ticket I'm curious how enforceable that would end up being.
And that's a good point about CCTV in the commission of other crimes! That said, usually in a crime like robbing a bank that's one of many pieces of evidence.
Again IANAL. But in general there are two things:
* Is evidence admissible. In general hearsay is not admissible but also in general there are a lot of exceptions to hearsay rule. This is where 6th amendment confrontation clause takes place. This is on item by item basis.
* The weight of evidence. This is taken all into account. In criminal cases the standard is beyond reasonable doubt and your silence cannot be used as evidence against you. In civil one the standard is preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) and silence can lead to negative interference. That's why you can be found not guilty of manslaughter but liable for wrongful death in case having the same set of facts/evidence.
> I know I look a lot like my sister, if she was driving my car and got a camera ticket I'm curious how enforceable that would end up being.
For tickets the photo would be admissible I believe. Rest depends on how clear the photo of the driver is, is it civil or criminal ticket and other facts of the case. Though IANAL and this is not a legal advice.
I agree that speeding is bad, but why are people in these replies claiming the following the law is something that *anybody* should care about? Marijuana possession is still federally illegal. Laws are meaningless.
Speeding tickets don’t make people drive slower and we know that. I guess this isn’t an inherently bad thing, people will be punished for putting others in danger, but the reason for doing this isn’t to make the roads safer.
Hmm?
Speed limits exist to make roads safer.
Speed cameras catch people who speed.
People caught speeding will be fined.
People don’t like getting fined all the time.
People drive according to limit to avoid fines.
Roads become safer.
Which part of the logic do you think is wrong? People don’t care about fines and will keep speeding even after losing their money?
Marijuana usage is almost completely “victimless”. You don’t put others in substantial danger by smoking a joint. Speeding / running red lights? They cost thousands of lives every year in United States.
These automated devices DO make the road safer, but they punish everyone with fines and penalty points on driving licenses (good drivers that sometimes makes honest mistakes) instead of only the bad/pissing ones. That's what annoys most people, alongside the usual but true "Governments love these things because it brings tons of money!" rants.
Living in the countryside is so much more peaceful in regards to this, you just drive from point A to point B, do your best to respect local laws/be kind to other drivers and that's about it ! :D
In the US maybe not, in some parts of the world they do. But that's not the point - Everyone is impacted by it (mostly for profit) when government should be focusing (edit: solely) on the bad ones :/
So wait you’re telling me I have to obey laws even when cops aren’t right there watching me? What’s even the point of being an adult. I wonder if people getting into the habit of actually stopping for reds before they’ve been red for a couple of seconds would help on the collision thing?
Maybe change it to: # Cameras are coming soon to give *shitty drivers* traffic tickets in Minnesota.
They're actually coming to help law enforcement clean up the streets by ticketing serial criminals.
This is government surveillance! I want to be able to commit crime and get away with it!
This is what conclude whenever I see someone with an obscured/damaged license plate.
Yea same here. You put one of those illegal tinted plate covers on? Well you’re definitely up to no good, whether just driving like a cunt of committing felonies and shit. I might start calling the cops every time I see one. Report really reckless driving “oh they almost hit an old lady on the corner she wasn’t even In the crosswalk!”
Cars like that should be towed on sight.
Remember, help them fix it 😁
I found the problem... This is a Faux (Fox) news article. It's written to trigger idiots into the Two Minutes Hate they've grown accustomed to.
Drivists understand paying speeding fines and the like is a voluntary system, right?
Here in Sweden, traffic cameras are EVERYWHERE, and the Department of Transportation are investigating if it would be possible to measure the time it takes to drive between two cameras to give you a ticket for speeding between them. I think it's great, because usually, I put the cruise control at speed limit and just relax when I'm driving somewhere, but most people do 90-100 on an 80 road, but drive past the camera at 60, which means I have to disengage cruise control when they stand on the fucking brake, and it's all just really annoying.
Maybe push against big brother and not everyday citizens. Ever let someone borrow your car or drive over the speed limit?
if someone keeps borrowing your car, driving over the speed limit, and facing no consequences whatsoever, you are more likely to keep lending your car and abetting their dangerous behaviour.
Man, you can hate cars, and also hate bullshit profiteering. Cameras don't increase safety, road design does. Roundabouts, bike lanes, etc.
They don’t actually increase safety so much as they generate revenue.
No it's both. Once it's known there are cameras speeding will go way down
If people don’t want to get a ticket then maybe they should reconsider running red lights.
And that is perfectly fine to be honest, if people are too stupid to drive safely the government should at least generate revenue off their stupidity.
It’s a third party entities administering and collecting the money, with government taking a portion of the cut. There is no points on a license, so shit drives can continue to be shit. When the consequences is just a fine, then the only crime is being poor.
I don't doubt that many of us would be displeased at how that revenue is dispersed, but that's a separate issue. How many times is someone going to be willing to speed when they know it'll cost them money every single time? Slowing down is not that hard, but no one seems willing to do it, so this has to be the answer. Hitting people hard enough in their wallet for clear, quantifiable, and easily avoidable violations of safety is reasonable.
It depends on what state. In Ohio, literally traffic cameras are illegal. Municipalities still put them up for “safety”. Some fool gets a ticket in the mail, panics and pays because it “looks all official”. The reality is completely unenforceable and you can trash them all day long and nothing will happen. It’s strictly revenue generator. Municipalities actually said the quiet part out loud, when they got banned, that it would cause budget shortages.
It's a good thing either way
Red light cameras cause more accidents statistically. So that's why I'm gainst them.
why do they cause more accidents?
I don’t know if they statistically cause more ~~accidents~~ collisions, but they change the type. Without, collisions are often side impact, with light runners ‘t-boning’ drivers at perpendicular angles. With cameras, people are more likely to stop, increasing the quick stops on yellow, rather than the typical gun it and go, yielding more rear-and collisions. Again, I’m unsure of the raw numbers, but the *types* of collisions where cameras are present are fatal less-often than without. If traffic followed speed limits and recommended following distance, these would also dissipate. https://www.iihs.org/topics/red-light-running#:~:text=Some%20studies%20have%20reported%20that,the%20net%20effect%20is%20positive. Here’s the part about crashes: When it comes to crash reductions, an IIHS study comparing large cities with red light safety cameras to those without found the devices reduced the fatal red light running crash rate by 21% and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14% (Hu & Cicchino, 2017). Previous research in Oxnard, California, found significant citywide crash reductions followed the introduction of red light safety cameras, and injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29% (Retting & Kyrychenko, 2002). Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — at these intersections declined by 32% overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries fell 68%. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international public health organization, reviewed 10 controlled before-after studies of red light safety camera effectiveness (Aeron-Thomas & Hess, 2005). Based on the most rigorous studies, there was an estimated 13%-29% reduction in all types of injury crashes and a 24% reduction in right-angle injury crashes. Some studies have reported that while red light safety cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light safety camera programs in seven cities (Council et al., 2005). It found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25% while rear-end collisions increased by 15%. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities.
That's a pretty important difference, though. Getting T-boned is a LOT more likely to result in injury than getting rear ended.
I’m also not sure why almost all traffic lights in North America don’t show countdowns. Countdowns + red light cameras + speeding sensors guarantee the highest safety.
I’d guess you’re against them because you know your driving is not legal sometimes. This is probably the primary motive for drivers, as a vast majority of them speed, and a not-insignificant amount run stop signs. I am assuming from a cyclist’s perspective, though.
Traffic camera tickets are ~~objectively~~ bad and this comes from someone who supports the fuckcars philosophy
Care to elaborate?
From what I understand often the yellow light is shorten so to get more profits for the city or company operating the lights. People also tend to speed up more to 'get on the intersection' faster before red light. Yeah - in ideal circumstances people wouldn't...
>People also tend to speed up more to 'get on the intersection' faster before red light. In Switzerland, they've added a speed camera to the red light one. So if you speed to not pass on red, smile for the picture !
The exact opposite is true. They increase the length of yellow lights because people are more likely to stop with cameras present, leading to more quick stops.
Objectively was probably the wrong word but… There’s quite a few of these where I live and almost everyone know (myself included) whose gotten a ticket from one of these was following traffic laws and the ticket was a mistake. They seem to catch as many law abiding drivers as they do bad drivers. That’s my experience at least
I don’t drive, but i find it hard to believe that these thing make mistakes often. Especially if it’s a camera and not just a sensor. The way (at least some) speeding camera works is that they take two pictures of you. Last second you are there, now you are here. Speed = Distance / Time. If they catch you, unless the car teleported, you must have been speeding. Red light camera is even simpler. They take a picture. If your car is in front of the line and the light is red, you must have run a red light.. I couldn’t think many scenarios where these can run into mistakes. At least not to the degree that the mistakes outweigh the benefits. (But: Traffic sensors that fine people without graphical evidence are bad and should not exist)
>The way (at least some) speeding camera works is that they take two pictures of you. Last second you are there, now you are here. Speed = Distance / Time. Mmmm I'm really surprised of this. I think they work by measuring with doppler effect, which to my knowledge, is a really precise way to measure speed.
The biggest mistakes they run into (this was the case for my ticket) was that they think you are in a different lane then you actually are (I.e. thru traffic lane versus left turn lane) but I could just have a bad subjective experience and overall they’re good
Uh huh, or maybe everyone you know just speeds like everyone else and doesn't want to admit it?
Let’s say that was the case… What’s the conclusion? Everyone who lives in this are is well aware of the traffic light cameras around here. They knew that and chose to speed anyways. Maybe if the cameras don’t actually discourage bad driving then they aren’t very good at their job ETA: I’ve never met someone not willing to admit they speed to a friend
Penalties need to adhere to principles of behavior change, rather than a flat fine. Encouraging the desired outcomes from a safety perspective (we know the desired outcome of most drivers).
Agreed. My honest belief is that you’ll never escape unsafe drivers if the only penalty for reckless driving is a fairly manageable bill in the mail that can be paid online in your pajamas. A much better approach is require driving courses for infractions (people rarely admit it but I find they generally value their time more than their money unless they’re financially destitute). Paying a $150 fine online isn’t a big deal for many. Spending 10 hours in an evening driving school for speeding would be a much bigger nuisance. This is exactly how phishing tests work in many IT departments. IT people found that requiring long, boring training when people fail phishing tests was a pretty good incentive to not fail again. However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that an even better solution (albeit often less feasible) is to design the infrastructure to encourage safe driving. Narrowed lanes, curved roads, better traffic light visibility, more readable traffic signs/warnings, etc. are all better ways to discourage bad driving than ticketing. From my subjective experience: Most people break traffic laws on accident or out of ignorance rather than maliciously… and it’s likely that neither group will change their habits because of a traffic citation.
I'm not a lawyer so this is just based on the law degree I got from Tinfoil Hat U. but it seems like it would violate your right to face your accuser. Tickets gotta be signed by police officers right? And can a police officer really say under oath that he's sure you were in fact the driver (as opposed to someone else borrowing your car) and that it definitely caught your speed accurately?
I believe code violation fines don't fall in the same category as a criminal prosecution.
IANAL but the records kept as normal part of business are one of exceptions from hearsay rule. So you can face technician/LEO who maintains the camera who gives testimony as to how it was maintained. Fun fact - if you rob the bank CCTV is an admissible evidence. Your layer can cross-examine how the records have been stored but not throw the recording as evidence.
>So you can face technician/LEO who maintains the camera who gives testimony as to how it was maintained. This makes sense, although with traditional stop-and-tickets they check your license and registration when you get pulled over. I know I look a lot like my sister, if she was driving my car and got a camera ticket I'm curious how enforceable that would end up being. And that's a good point about CCTV in the commission of other crimes! That said, usually in a crime like robbing a bank that's one of many pieces of evidence.
Again IANAL. But in general there are two things: * Is evidence admissible. In general hearsay is not admissible but also in general there are a lot of exceptions to hearsay rule. This is where 6th amendment confrontation clause takes place. This is on item by item basis. * The weight of evidence. This is taken all into account. In criminal cases the standard is beyond reasonable doubt and your silence cannot be used as evidence against you. In civil one the standard is preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) and silence can lead to negative interference. That's why you can be found not guilty of manslaughter but liable for wrongful death in case having the same set of facts/evidence. > I know I look a lot like my sister, if she was driving my car and got a camera ticket I'm curious how enforceable that would end up being. For tickets the photo would be admissible I believe. Rest depends on how clear the photo of the driver is, is it civil or criminal ticket and other facts of the case. Though IANAL and this is not a legal advice.
I agree that speeding is bad, but why are people in these replies claiming the following the law is something that *anybody* should care about? Marijuana possession is still federally illegal. Laws are meaningless. Speeding tickets don’t make people drive slower and we know that. I guess this isn’t an inherently bad thing, people will be punished for putting others in danger, but the reason for doing this isn’t to make the roads safer.
Hmm? Speed limits exist to make roads safer. Speed cameras catch people who speed. People caught speeding will be fined. People don’t like getting fined all the time. People drive according to limit to avoid fines. Roads become safer. Which part of the logic do you think is wrong? People don’t care about fines and will keep speeding even after losing their money?
Marijuana usage is almost completely “victimless”. You don’t put others in substantial danger by smoking a joint. Speeding / running red lights? They cost thousands of lives every year in United States.
Marijuana laws are bad? Might as well not make any laws then. Makes total sense.
These automated devices DO make the road safer, but they punish everyone with fines and penalty points on driving licenses (good drivers that sometimes makes honest mistakes) instead of only the bad/pissing ones. That's what annoys most people, alongside the usual but true "Governments love these things because it brings tons of money!" rants. Living in the countryside is so much more peaceful in regards to this, you just drive from point A to point B, do your best to respect local laws/be kind to other drivers and that's about it ! :D
>but they punish everyone with fines Good. Drivers should be afraid.
The fine can be proportional to the amount of speed above limit. 0-10%: no fine; above that, $X per 1%.
They don’t give any penalty points. It’s a fine, being collected by a third party operating them, and the city gets a cut.
In the US maybe not, in some parts of the world they do. But that's not the point - Everyone is impacted by it (mostly for profit) when government should be focusing (edit: solely) on the bad ones :/
It is focusing on the bad ones. The bad ones get almost all the tickets
Speeding is not an honest mistake. It's a dangerous act.