Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the er-yes-no-maybe dept.

Speed cameras have been the focus of motorists' anger and frustration for years, although we are told repeatedly that they are an effective means of reducing death and injury on the roads. But is this really the case?

Whether speed cameras actually do save lives seems an easy assertion to test: measure the numbers of casualties at a site over a period, say two years; introduce a speed camera; re-measure the number of casualties over an equal period, and any reduction is due to the camera. But it's not really that simple. Many other factors are at play that might make cameras appear to be more effective than they really are. And these factors are often ignored when evaluating the performance of speed cameras at improving road safety.

Do speed cameras actually save lives?

[...] In road safety data, there is a general tendency for collision incidents at a site to reduce anyway following a short-term rise in their number, without any treatment (such as a speed camera) being applied. In statistics, this is known as regression-to-the-mean (or RTM). We also know that the long-term trend in collisions has generally been downward due to factors such as improved vehicle safety and better driver education[PDF].

So if we observe a reduction in casualties at a site following the installation of a camera, we need to ask how much of this reduction would have happened anyway (the RTM effect)? How much is due to general trends in road safety? And how much can we actually attribute to the camera itself?

[...] To make matters worse, half of the UK's fixed speed cameras may not even be turned on. So the situation is far from simple.

Methods to accurately account for RTM and trend often require knowledge of advanced statistics which may not always be available within a road safety team, and so it is likely that these confounding factors are not being considered consistently across the country.

[...] So, do speed cameras save lives? The answer is almost certainly yes, but probably not always to the extent that people are led to believe.

https://theconversation.com/do-speed-cameras-really-save-lives-87701


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:40PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:40PM (#599809)

    As usual, our government (in the US, at least) sees fit to provide corporate welfare to the companies that make cameras like these. And what do we get in return? Well, since they're all proprietary, we have no idea exactly how they work. They're typically controlled by shady corporations that want to extort as much money from us as possible. Automated 'justice' is a terrible idea in absolutely all cases, as there should always be a human to verify that a crime actually took place, and a way to fight back against false charges.

    I don't care how many lives they supposedly save, though I doubt they do. They are inherently unjust. No one should want to live in a mass surveillance society.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:44PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:44PM (#599814)

      Install cameras in your car, and GPS devices in your car, and use them.

      Then you'll have evidence of your own, and you might thereby expose wrongdoing as well.

      As always, the best check against abuse of power is competition.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:56PM (#599827)

        No, the best check against abuses of power is to take away an abusive government's toys. Just don't let them conduct mass surveillance on the populace. A number of cities in the US have successfully gotten rid of things like red-light cameras and speed cameras, so it's doable.

        I'd rather be less safe than have these things, which generously assumes they do increase safety.

      • (Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)

        by Kell (292) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:22AM (#600081)

        How is this a troll? This is a reasonable position to take.

        --
        Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:29AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @01:29AM (#600454) Journal

          As always, the best check against abuse of power is competition.

          How is this a troll? This is a reasonable position to take.

          Not the modder, but I find amusing the idea of competition as a guard against abuse of power.
            I can guarantee you two parasites will happily share the same victim especially if they derive benefits in different ways. You only need to look on how your govt, your bank and your comms provider compete to suck you dry of your money.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:59PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:59PM (#599831) Homepage

      Here in San Diego speed camera tickets were a total of around $400 bucks.

      Only $150 or so of that actually went to the city. You can guess with much accuracy where the remainder went.

      Fortunately, sanity prevailed and the ones in San Diego were dismantled.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:41PM (9 children)

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:41PM (#599891) Journal

      A friend worked for one of those speed trap camera companies for short time in Maryland. He would drive a van with the equipment to a selected site and setup a tripod with a camera and sensor with a cable that ran to a rack in the van. One of their main targets were highway off ramps to purposefully catch people coming off the exits and merging onto the service road at near highway speeds as the exit had a 30MPH posting. I was on the phone with him one night and the software played the Windows XP ding error sound every time it nailed someone. During that conversation all you heard was ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ..... on and on. Well over 100 people nabbed in just the 30 minutes were were on the phone. He said he had many nights where his van issued over 500 tickets. The tickets were $150 and the company would do this EVERY day at random locations using four speed trap vans. We estimated they could easily make upwards of two million *per week* between all four vans. Not sure what the split was with the county though. That is a shit load of money and I guarantee you did nothing to increase road safety and only lined the pockets of the contractor. It's just a money grab.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:11PM (2 children)

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:11PM (#599914) Journal

        I forgot to mention they purposefully set up the traps during rush hour. So you know it's a money grab.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:23PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:23PM (#599958)

          Or, they set it up at times they knew people would be driving recklessly so as to maximize impact.

          If that many tickets are being issued, that implies that there's a serious need for enforcement action. Freeway offramps are for slowing down to an appropriate speed and usually they're designed for a speed between that of the freeway and that of the surrounding streets.

          How many people need to get killed because freedom?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:13PM (#600292)

            Driving over some arbitrary speed limit is not necessary reckless. Anyone who is in favor of automated 'justice' is in favor of injustice.

            How many people need to get killed because freedom?

            I'd rather many people die than live in a mass surveillance society.

      • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)

        by physicsmajor (1471) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @03:57PM (#600210)

        If true, the limit is incorrect. It should be set at the 80-85th percentile from traditional wisdom, but in a situation with potential near-100% enforcement it should be higher, likely above the 95th percentile. What you're describing cannot be anywhere close. Furthermore most limits on large roads are intended for semis and the most top heavy SUVs; normal vehicles can safely exceed them by 10-15 mph. This does not mean you should ticket a sedan going 70 around a curve marked 60 coming down into Phoenix, for example.

        Another way to think about this is that the goal is to have safe and efficient traffic flow. Unless a huge percentage of those ticketed are having accidents, the limit is too low.

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:43PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:43PM (#600269) Journal

          It doesn't matter if it's technically incorrect. The only thing that matters is whether a speed trap will make the county more money when placed next to the ramp. This isnt about traffic safety, traffic engineering or any other positive improvement. This is about extorting money from the people for the county.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:07PM (1 child)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:07PM (#600249) Journal

        One of their main targets were highway off ramps to purposefully catch people coming off the exits and merging onto the service road at near highway speeds as the exit had a 30MPH posting.

        Interesting...in Pennsylvania at least (the only state whose vehicle code I've read fairly thoroughly...) every single one of those tickets would likely be unlawful -- they aren't allowed to issue a citation through automated means within 500 feet after a decrease in the speed limit.

        Mechanical, electrical or electronic devices may not be used to time the rate of speed of vehicles within 500 feet after a speed limit sign indicating a decrease of speed.

          - http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/75/75.HTM [state.pa.us]

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @05:45PM (#600270) Journal

          If memory serves correctly, they had him move around the i70 where some of the ramps are as long as 1500 ft (quick and dirty results from google maps measure tool). Ramp off speed is posted at 30 at the beginning exit ramp giving motorists plenty of time to slow down. But 30 MPH isn't very fast and the limit was 12 MPH over before the computer would ticket you, meaning >42MPH = summons. It's very reasonable to assume that motorists could easily be travelling in the 40-50 MPH range well after 1000ft which isn't that fast.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:41PM (#600298)

        Great friend you have there, to work for such a company. Let me guess, another one of your friends is a TSA thug?

        • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM

          by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31PM (#600360) Journal

          Nice. Blame the guy who's working for a living. FYI, he quit after a few months and went back to school.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:42PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:42PM (#599811)

    ... are caused by traffic police and their various enforcement devices.

    When cops pull over speeders, they often create a massive problem; they sometimes obstruct the way, they place themselves and the "offender" on the shoulder of the road, which is so dangerous that some States even require passers-by to merge into at least the next lane over; this slows down traffic, creates more opportunity for mistakes, and generally increases the tendency towards road rage.

    It would be better just to let the speeder get to his destination.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:01PM (6 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:01PM (#599833) Journal

      this slows down traffic,

      So it works then!!!

      Great news. .

      Park an excess police car with light flashing and some random junker along the road, blow up doll in the driver seat and call it a day.
      Cheaper than a camera installation.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by qzm on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)

        by qzm (3260) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:49PM (#599872)

        Interesting how many posts you are making in this thread. Care to let us know your involvement?

        Anyway, yet again you spout pure garbage. You are saying that the normal reaction to a police car on the side of the road (which is usually a reduction in average speed to a small fraction of the local limit) is a good thing?
        You strongly support the large tailbacks that often occur (especially in peak times) on critical routes as being good?
        You actually think we should find ways of artificially doing this to create this effect more often?

        So, your basic position seems to be that actively punishing a large percentage of road users for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG is a good idea.
        I see..
        Interesting viewpoint.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:22PM (#599957)

          Interesting how many posts you are making in this thread. Care to let us know your involvement?

          He's just lonely because not a lot of people want to listen to him embrace <insert today's batshit crazy agenda>.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:03PM (#599907)

        Of course it works. There is nothing that slows idiots down on the road than a police car. Suddenly the speedsters become very careful drivers. At least for 5 minutes.

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:14PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:14PM (#599915) Journal

        Park an excess police car with light flashing and some random junker along the road, blow up doll in the driver seat and call it a day.

        Ha! Super Troopers had a scene in the beginning where one of the troopers used a blow up doll as a decoy while he fished in the lake next to the road.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:14PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:14PM (#599953)

        do speed cameras save lives? The answer is almost certainly

        unknowable. Too many variables, too many strongly held opinions on both sides of the issue, and as the article implies: whatever effect there is is likely minimal.

        Speed cameras are one of dozens of behavior shaping methods attempting to influence driver behavior on the road. If speed control was such an important life and death decision point, there are dozens of viable technologies that have been available for decades to 100% control vehicle speed on the public roads. When GPS was rolled out to trucking fleets, some fleets (WalMart for one) imposed zero speeding tolerance policies on their drivers for several years - during that time your would NEVER see a WalMart truck over the posted speed limit. Apparently they have relaxed this policy in recent years, because I regularly see all semis on the local highway at 5-15mph over the limit. Toll roads know how far drivers travel and how long it takes them to travel that distance, but I don't know a single one that imposes any kind of penalty for arriving at the pay booth "extra-legally early."

        Since speed isn't important enough to actually control completely, it's left out there in the field with other "violations of law" that seem to be enforced less than 1% of the time. It leaves the impression that it's just a minor revenue generation scheme masquerading as a public safety action. I think, like so many laws, speed mostly isn't enforced until somebody (somebody the police department pays attention to) complains and asks for enforcement. They enforce until the complainer is mollified, or they are no longer turning a profit by giving tickets in that location, because the regular drivers in an area do catch on fairly quickly even if they're not personally stopped.

        As for speed-camera revenue generation schemes, they surely exist, but I think many courts still throw out such tickets if you fight them.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:11PM

        by slinches (5049) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:11PM (#600223)

        They do this where I live. I frequently see police cars parked on the side of the road with lights on and they don't even pretend to have a car pulled over. They just stop and turn on the lights at specific locations and times to strategically induce changes in traffic flow to prevent additional backups. Usually it's a mile or so ahead of construction or natural bottleneck to create gaps for more effective merging.

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:02PM (1 child)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:02PM (#599835) Homepage

      Well then slow down so the cop knows you're not gonna try to flee, pull of the next off-ramp, and pull over somewhere safe. And keep your registration and insurance on a flap thingy on one of those sun-blocking fold-thingies above your head so you don't have to freak the cop out reaching into your glovebox.

      Bootlicking 101: knowing the exact right combination of being afraid and not being afraid will get you off the hook.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:26PM (#599960)

        Bootlicking 101: knowing the exact right combination of being afraid and not being afraid will get you off the hook.

        Is "bootlicking" your safeword when you're the bottom? I would think that might trigger a few false positives.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:59PM (#599874)

      Bull shit, you're just rationalizing it. If there's a crash in that scenario, it's the speeder's fault. You'd not normally required to pull over immediately, you're required to pull over at the nearest safe spot. Just put the turn signal on and slow down and pull over as soon as you can do so safely.

      Bottom line here is that in general speed limits are supposed to be set based upon the safe speed at which people can drive under good conditions. Just because some jackasses feel that they're entitled to drive significantly faster than the speed limit doesn't make it any less dangerous.

      In terms of the cameras, the goal here is to get people to slow down so that they have more time to react and if they do hit something there's less momentum and energy to dissipate leading to less likelihood of fatalities.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tfried on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:51PM (8 children)

    by tfried (5534) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:51PM (#599820)

    Well ignorance of RTM effects is a minor pet peeve of mine, so thanks for bringing that up. But when criticizing methods, you better do it right. What the author does not even seem to think about, is that a speed camera could have effects on a larger area. Sure, if you are aware of a specific speed camera, that is certainly an extra strong reason to check your speed on a certain road. However, beyond this, a diffuse awareness that there might be speed cameras anywhere certainly helps drivers to discipline themselves. Good luck measuring that effect, of course.

    So does this criticism make sense? The answer is almost certainly yes, but probably not to the extent that the author believes.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SparkyGSX on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:04PM (7 children)

      by SparkyGSX (4041) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:04PM (#599836)

      The "larger area" effect could also work the other way around; personally, I have two obvious routes to a specific highway, which take about the same time to travel. One of them has 3 speed/red light cameras, the other has none. Guess which my usual route is? Also, when I do need to take the route with the cameras, I am usually speeding between the cameras, after slowing down for each, and accelerating when I've passed them. I've seen quite a few studies that found both speed and red light cameras increase the number of rear-end collisions near the camera, so I'm definitely not convinced there is er net-positive effect on road safety.

      --
      If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:14PM (1 child)

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:14PM (#599846) Journal

        So what?

        Not EVERYBODY driving through there does that, and they bring your speed down to a sane level simply by being there.
        You can only pull your childish shenanigans on an empty road where it doesn't matter.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:16PM (#599847)

          Not EVERYBODY needs to do it for it to make a significant difference.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:04PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:04PM (#599879)

        First off, red light cameras are intended to stop people from t-boning each other at the intersection. Running into the back of somebody isn't something that 3rd parties can solve, the solution is to not be in the next driver's underwear. Give it a couple seconds so that if something does happen you can brake in time.

        Secondly, the existence of a camera should be an indication that the authorities know that there's a speeding problem and to not speed. I'd love to see them position a few aircraft from time to time to nail people thinking they got off the hook by speeding up between the cameras.

        Lastly, the fact that you're not convinced indicates that you don't understand any of what's going on. An increase in rear-end collisions is evidence that people need to stop driving like jackasses as a rear end collision is the kind that gives the drivers the best chance of walking with no injuries. You can easily avoid the problem by using a safe following distance. If you get hit, you can sue and usually win as the driver behind has to prove that you were responsible not them for following too closely.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:58PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:58PM (#599903)

          You know what also would do the trick? Longer Yellow light and delay on the green for the other traffic. And it wouldn't have the problems of the cameras.

          Also the camera will not stop the real cause of tboning, distracted driving.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:27PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:27PM (#599962)

            You can't increase the length of the yellow long enough. There are going to be people who would push it even if the yellow was a full minute long and I suspect there'd be people that aren't already pushing it doing so if it was that long.

            The cause of a t-bone crash is that somebody ran the light plain and simple. If nobody runs a light then you don't get a t-bone collision. Whether it's because they're distracted or just assholes doesn't much matter as either way somebody ran the light.

            Knowing that there's a camera catching everybody that runs the light serves as a deterrent to the distracted driving as well as assholes trying to push their luck.

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:29AM

              by DECbot (832) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:29AM (#599982) Journal

              You know what would really stop t-bone accidents, a retractable wall. You stop when you see the yellow light because the wall is being raised for your direction of traffic. If the wall is thick and high enough, you'll stop even when traveling 70mph into it.

              --
              cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @07:36PM (#600296)

              Knowing that there's a camera catching everybody that runs the light serves as a deterrent to the distracted driving as well as assholes trying to push their luck.

              Where's your evidence? Even if it is true, why are you okay with mass surveillance in the name of safety?

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:57PM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:57PM (#599829) Journal

    To hell with the cameras and the automated tickets and the ticket revenue fraud.

    Just put up the speed-camera warning signs mid-block as are often found. That alone would work for a while.

    If the problem persists add a Raspberry Pi Speed Cam [wordpress.com] to trigger a cheap flash in an empty camera shell. Don't bother recording anything - just use it to fire the flash.

    Once a month send a cop out there with a real radar gun to issue tickets (preserving the illusion) and call it a day.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:02PM (#599834)

      Oh, thank you, sir. That is quite an interesting project! :)

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:59PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @07:59PM (#599830)

    No they don't. If they did, it would not be economically viable to place them, and yet it appears to be *very* economically viable. So much so that companies that make them only let you RENT them these days. The contract says you only get 55% of the ticket money and they get to place it where they want, when they want. In other words: as soon as they start 'saving lives', they are removed and put somewhere else, only for the problem to return.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:08PM (2 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:08PM (#599839) Journal

      So much so that companies that make them only let you RENT them these days.

      That's not exactly true.

      No police department wants to buy equipment that will be obsolete before its installed, and more trouble to maintain, calibrate, certify, and requiring staffing dollars they don't have.

      They INSIST on renting them. There's no market for purchase only speed cameras.

      Traffic monitoring cameras are purchased in droves (and some are rented as well). But these are highway departments, and much simpler devices, and they don't have to be calibrated and certified accurate.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by qzm on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)

        by qzm (3260) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:43PM (#599868)

        Bullshit, pure bullshit - obviously you are not independent in this situation.

        I know this is a commonly spun story, usually between the people writing the deals, and getting nice kickbacks on doing so (depending on how smart they are), and the vendors.
        These devices do NOT go 'obsolete before they are installed', in fact the operational lifespan is at a minimum several years.
        The paybacks on they is MASSIVE, and the percentage of tick revenue model is a simple fraud on the public.

        Should we start paying police a percentage of the fines levied against their arrests? Actually, that would not be comparable, as the police dont judge fact.
        We that is the equivalent to is paying JUDGES a percentage of the fines they levy - as the speed cameras themselves are delivering the verdict in 90+% of cases.

        If these are being leased, the ONLY sane model is a fixed price lease - after all, the cost of the devices is fixed. Anything else needs to be hammered FAST.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:49PM

          by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:49PM (#599896) Journal

          Everything I said is true.

          Find one Police department that wants to Purchase Cameras. You won't.
          Find one that wants to maintain cameras, certify them. You won't.

          Camera systems take time to install and upgrades happen ALL the time, because they keep finding bugs and judges keep throwing them out.

          Clearly you haven't followed the money. Because police departments already get a cut of redlight and speed cam revenue. Check out your state/city laws before opening screaming bullshit.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:28PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:28PM (#599964)

      If they were such the money spinning scheme, I think they would have grown in number MUCH faster than they have. This has been going on in the US for over a decade, and I don't think it's growing like a free money tree normally would.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:04PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:04PM (#599837)

    If saving lives is the top priority, then intubating everyone and locking them inside their own individual coffin-sized cells will enable you to save and preserve life for as long as the body and technology can sustain it.

    Since no one seems to seriously be advocating for that approach, there are higher priorities. While it's sad to see the state of subjects of modern England, those across the pond where lip service is still paid to the idea of people being free alongside a government shackled to a limited list of enumerated delegated powers, the self-ownership of one's own meatsack along with all the consequences of that state is still the highest priority of many.

    "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:12PM (#599843) Journal

      Why is it Mr. AC that I get the suspicion you would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side if the subject were texting while driving.

      Don't get me wrong It was an excellent tin-foil rage, and probably quite cathartic for you.
      But next time, just type it all out, experience the rage release, then close your browser before hitting submit.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (#599863)

        Why is it Mr. AC that I get the suspicion you would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side if the subject were texting while driving.

        I don't know why you pretend to be a mind reader. Only you could know that.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:16PM (#599916)

        Why is it Mr. AC that I get the suspicion you would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side if the subject were texting while driving.

        I don't know, frojack; why do you get the suspicion that I [soylentnews.org] would come down on EXACTLY the opposite side (e.g. advocate FOR use of force of government against people) if the subject were texting while driving?

        I try to keep a consistent set of worldviews, and those worldviews include "no victim, no crime". Speeding, recreational drug use, gun possession, human social interaction, and texting while driving all involve actions regarding choices which can be harmless or harmful. Those actions which produce no identifiable and verifiable harm cannot be considered crimes among a people who each own their own bodies exclusively. (Humans who do not have sole and exclusive ownership of their own bodies are slaves by definition.) For your "safety feels", there may be some mollification in that I do see a consistent approach with harshly dealing with actions that DO cause identifiable and verifiable harm to human individuals, primarily featuring restitution.

  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (6 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:40PM (#599865) Journal

    in Australia, driving offences also attract demerit points.
    Offences in "schools zones" attract higher fines and more points.

    You get the fine notification in the mail.
    Not all cameras are well sign-posted (especially smaller streets leading to the camera)
    School zones are 40km/h, where the "normal" speed limit, outside school zone times could be 50, 60, or even 70 km/h.
    You can, unwittingly, get photographed in a school zone, doing the "non-school zone" limit, more than once, and not find out until several letters arrive, a week or two later.
    (Possibly followed by one informing you you have lost your licence)

    Lives saved! Dangerous driver punished!

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:07PM (#599881)

      It depends where you are in the US, some states have a point system and others let you keep your license unless you commit one of a variety of offenses at which point the license is suspended for some period of time.

      Around here camera related tickets aren't considered to be traffic citations so you can't lose your license no matter how many of those you get and they tend to be for less money. I've recently noticed the some buses now have cameras on their sides to catch the license plates of individuals that pass while the stop sign in on and flashing.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:32PM (2 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:32PM (#599965)

      In the old days you just had to mouth off to a cop, once, and that would happen.

      A friend's mother (50 years old) had driven for 20+ years and never had a ticket. She backed out of her driveway and ran into someone, accident - first in decades. Cop arrives and gives her a citation for the incident - she mouths off to him (perfectly within her normal personality), and he proceeds to give her more tickets totaling 11 points on her license, when 12 points in 12 months results in a suspension of the license. I'm sure if she had continued to mouth off to him he could have found another 15 points of violations to cite her for without trying very hard.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:18AM (1 child)

        by Entropy (4228) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:18AM (#600012)

        Or you could just not commit a whole bunch of traffic offenses that lead to property damage and perhaps injuries? Or if you did perhaps you know, be nice..

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:29AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @04:29AM (#600041)

          She did, in fact, "have it coming" but normally that would have been a 3 or 4 point kind of situation.

          My point is: at any time a cop wants to, they can cite you for any number of things you did, might have done, or just can't prove you didn't do - more than enough to suspend your license, and you have no recourse other than to take them to court and hope the judge has the patience to watch your dashcam footage closely enough to maybe start to believe your story. Oh, you don't run continuous dashcam recordings starting from before when you back out of the driveway? So sorry, then it's your word against the officer and his notebook, or perhaps his dashcam if it backs up his story.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 1) by Didz on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:52AM (1 child)

      by Didz (1336) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @06:52AM (#600542) Homepage

      In South Australia there is no camera warning signs for mobile cameras and any signs for fixed cameras do not have a speed limit sign next to them like other states do.

      School zones are 25kmph when children present. Not only is it slower than other states it is a grey area about what what 'children present' means or even if you see one at all.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:02AM

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday November 23 2017, @08:02AM (#600551) Journal

        In NSW, school days are the days published in the NSW Government Gazette. Pupil free days (teachers only, or no one at all at schools) are also 40km/h.

        At least they are putting flashing lights at the start of school zones (Well "one set per school" - too bad if the school has lots of roads around it)
        http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/schools/flashinglights/index.html [nsw.gov.au]

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:46PM (9 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 21 2017, @08:46PM (#599871) Journal

    In some cities speed cameras go hand-in-hand with shortening the yellow light in order to increase revenue.

    In this situation, then No, it is NOT about safety or keeping you safe. They would prefer to create a more dangerous intersection to increase prophets.

    Self driving cars might better negotiate these intersections because self driving cars have lots of censors that could potentially spot in advance the shorter yellow light if it could see a complete cycle before reaching the intersection.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:01PM (#599876)

      They would prefer to create a more dangerous intersection to increase prophets.

      "Let my people Go*."

      * through the stoplight.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:33PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:33PM (#599921)

        Go down, Moses,
        Basement of city hall,
        Tell Ol' Mister Law,
        To let my tickets go.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:10PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:10PM (#599882)

      Unless the yellow lights had previously been extended in an effort to prevent t-bone crashes and the final length is reasonable, there's no problem with that.

      Times get cut on yellow in order to increase throughput on the intersection. During a yellow light you're not supposed to enter the intersection unless you can't safely stop. It exists because it takes a moment for somebody to register a change in the light and going to yellow is less problematic than going to red in all directions while the traffic clears the intersection. Because there's not supposed to be any vehicles in the intersection when the light is yellow, it makes for a period that's wasted in terms of traffic movement, so it gets shortened when possible.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:29AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:29AM (#600104)

        It exists because it takes a moment for somebody to register a change in the light

        That's not even half of it. Even if you could register the change instantly, you'd need Star Trek level brakes ("Full stop, Mr. Zulu") to go from 45 to 0 when you do register the change one foot before entering the intersection.

        And even if you did have Star Trek level brakes, just imagine the number of cars rear ending you because they don't have Star Trek level brakes.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:42PM (#599892) Journal

      In some cities speed cameras go hand-in-hand with shortening the yellow light

      Some states have stepped up and banned that practice [wa.gov] statewide:

      (b) Except as provided in (c) of this subsection, use of automated traffic safety cameras is restricted to the following locations only: (i) Intersections of two arterials with traffic control signals that have yellow change interval durations in accordance with RCW 47.36.022, which interval durations may not be reduced after placement of the camera; (ii) railroad crossings; and (iii) school speed zones.

      Washington also prohibits:
      - revenue sharing with camera providers
      - tickets from appearing in your driving record (treated exactly like parking tickets)
      - Revenue dedicated exactly like parking tickets
      - Speed cam Fines no higher than parking tickets
      - Red light cam fines no higher than any officer ticketed similar redlight violation.
      - Requires annual report of accidents at camera installations and notices sent and fines imposed.

      Much of the Washington State camera laws were tightened in 2012 after a UW student published a small study [bancams.com] of yellow light fiddling by Seattle in 2010.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:50PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @11:50PM (#599971) Journal

        > _after_ placement of the camera

        Very weaselly. The trouble with these systems is the temptation to cheat is too great, there are many ways to cheat, and they're using them. The speed trap is an old scam. Cameras are relatively new, but the basics of the law enforcement shakedown are the same. I have no problem with these systems if the operators do not cheat. However, since they've shown that they are unwilling to operate their equipment fairly, I oppose the cameras.

        They've taken to installing red light cameras at intersections that already had a too short yellow. I read that at least one stoplight control manufacturer delivered a default yellow duration of 3.9 seconds, a strange value to choose, as that is too short for many intersections. Of course during installation the yellow should be adjusted to the intersection, but if the workers are rushed, pretty easy to skip that step. Red light camera operators deliberately seek out these intersections. Then they can say they didn't shorten the yellow, while the system issues citations that should not have been issued.

        Something else that's been neglected is creating a clear standard for the duration of the yellow. This is deliberate. The informal standard of 1 second per 10 mph of speed limit is a little short. All the time I see heavy trucks blow through intersections fractions of a second after it turns red because they cannot stop fast enough, the yellow was too short. Proponents abuse this information to falsely imply that the violations are willful and that the scofflaws are best stopped with enforcement and punishment.

        The American driver is very disciplined compared to many other nations. You ought to see how people drive in Rome. Lane markings are mostly ignored. Traffic flows like a bunch of logs in a river, jostling around, drifting in and out of lanes. To claim there's an epidemic of traffic violations in America is misleading to say the least.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:52PM (#599898)

      They would prefer to create a more dangerous intersection to increase prophets.

      They're trying to manufacture martyrs! Which saint died on a zebra crossing again? Was it an important one?

      (Sorry this typo just amused me for some reason.)

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by bob_super on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:40PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 21 2017, @10:40PM (#599925)

        I think the Prophet is actually the one who sends the message that you shouldn't be here, by T-boning you with his pickup. The last words you hear from the Prophet will accompany your journey into the afterlife, yet your children will not understand the meaning of a "Monkey-fighting car in a Monday-to-Friday red light" until they have matured enough.

        Note that if stupid religious extremists want to be martyrs, we will not run out of the aforementioned type of prophet.

  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:58AM

    by crafoo (6639) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:58AM (#599989)

    don't care if they do. they make money, which is their purpose.
    If we wanted to get people to pay attention and drive safe it wouldn't be that hard. Reduce the fines to $0. But make the record permanent and permanently revoke the driving license at a set infraction limit (points). Texting or driving drunk = automatic revocation if it's near a crosswalk or other location where you should expect pedestrians. Pretty much equivalent to waving a loaded fun around in public.
    Also make the test much harder. Make it a real certification.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:43AM

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @02:43AM (#600018) Journal

    So, do speed cameras save lives? The answer is almost certainly yes, but probably not always to the extent that people are led to believe.

    I don't think you can assume that.

    For instance, there's this [motorists.org], which clearly indicates people in Montana were safer when they were driving at whatever speed they were comfortable at and not worrying about getting tickets and insurance rate increases.

    Speed limits got pushed down, fatal accidents went up. There's no way around the numbers. Well, unless you're a lying, POS legislator, of course.

  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:02AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:02AM (#600097) Homepage Journal

    Where I live, the problem isn't so much the cameras as the nearly random changes in the speed limit (whether or not there are cameras). You're going along on the highway at 120 km/h, and suddenly the speed limit is 100. Why? Because some traffic engineer somewhere got a knot in his undies? Or even 80 (used for construction zones), because sometime next week (or last week) there will be (or was) construction in the area.

    People slowing down on a busy highway, for basically no reason, causes traffic jams at rush hour. Intuitively, at least, I expect those traffic jams cause additional accidents. All made worse, of course, by certain areas (Lucerne) that are known for putting speed traps right after the change in speed limits.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:10AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:10AM (#600114)

    "Speed kills" is the cry of politicians for speed cameras.

    But the result of speed cameras are people slowing down while passing the camera, which causes traffic to slow down before the camera, which makes people late.

    And people who are late drive faster (after passing the camera) to catch up, and become stressed. Stressed people pay less attention to traffic.

    • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31AM

      by Dr Spin (5239) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:31AM (#600117)

      May be not the same here (UK), but speed cameras in areas where the limit is over 30MPH are probably a significant cause of accidents because plonkers see the camera in a 50MPH limit and suddenly brake to 30. The cars behind them are way to close and not expecting it - the further back, the less they expect it, and a wave of slowing propagates backwards, growing steadily, until there is an accident 1/2 mile back from the camera. Of course the Bill say "nothing to do with the camera - that's another 1/2 mile down the road". Any truck driver on the A406 will tell you this happens at least once a week. Of course not all the accidents are fatal.

      Meanwhile, in London, we now have the plague of cameras in 300 foot long sections of 20mph limit in major roads. Since most traffic in London does not exceed 7MPH anyway, people rarely bother looking at the speed signs, so this must be a major money maker - and not just for the contractors painting all the additional signage. They are probably good business for undertakers too - people (mostly cyclists) expect everyone to obey the limit, and pull out without looking properly more often than usual in front of the kind of wally that does not obey any limits (motorcyclists, mostly).

      --
      Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:30PM (4 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 22 2017, @12:30PM (#600141) Journal

    At the time of my reading this, there are over 50 comments, many of which miss the entire point.

    If you are NOT speeding, you cannot be caught by camera designed to catch vehicles that are speeding. Why don't people just obey the speed limits so that all these claims of being money-generating scams or major causes of accidents are irrelevant?

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:29PM (#600329) Journal

      Because sometimes travelling with the speed of traffic flow is the best way to prevent an accident?
      Because a machine has no judgement as to whether you might have an otherwise compelling reason?
      Because machines should not rule men, it should be the opposite way around?

      And I'll ask the opposite: Why do we focus on speed and not the larger issue of safety? If one is driving safely for the road conditions why should the state care about my speed? Except to get money from me, since driving safely at any speed implies there shall not be an accident?

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:56AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:56AM (#600549) Journal

        Because sometimes travelling with the speed of traffic flow is the best way to prevent an accident?

        If the traffic is travelling at the speed limit then why should this be a problem? Or is your argument that because the car in front wishes to drive above the limit that you ought to do the same for safety reasons? Did your Mom/Mum ever ask you the question 'If you friend put his hand into the fire - would you put your hand into it too?' when you tried to use a similar justification for something you got wrong when a child?

        Because a machine has no judgement as to whether you might have an otherwise compelling reason?

        Which is why you can always opt to go to court and argue your case there. If the judge agrees, he can throw out the charge.

        Because machines should not rule men, it should be the opposite way around?

        I think that you will find that it is men who placed those cameras where they are - the cameras are entirely under our control. We haven't wandered that far into the dystopian future yet.

        Why do we focus on speed and not the larger issue of safety?

        Because there is a clear and proven correlation between speed and safety. Speed affects breaking distances, requires that the vehicle is technically able to safely handle the speed involved, and that all drivers can reasonably be expected to have sufficient reaction speeds to manage with most of the unexpected events that might occur. Of course you (like every other driver) believes that you are a very good driver and it is the idiots in the other cars that cause the accidents. So keeping speed down to an agreed level ensures that the idiots in the other cars should be able to cope when they get confused by your use of indicators, or correctly changing lanes when you intend to turn of the road or highway you are travelling on. Additionally, if you are travelling at the speed limit + 30mph - because we all know that you are able to do so being the excellent driver that you are - you are probably going to cause accidents because your driving is beyond the abilities of other drivers to cope with.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 22 2017, @09:22PM (#600356)

      If you are NOT speeding, you cannot be caught by camera designed to catch vehicles that are speeding.

      How do you know this? These are typically proprietary corporation-controlled algorithms.

      Also, the laws were written to be enforced by humans as necessary, which gives greater flexibility than a mindless algorithm; some speeding may not be dangerous and so may not warrant a ticket. Suddenly having perfect enforcement changes everything entirely, and not in a way that is satisfying to humans or even in a way that necessarily increases safety. Many cops know this, though sometimes there are ridiculous quotas they have to fill. Automated justice is not justice at all.

      Why don't people just obey the speed limits so that all these claims of being money-generating scams or major causes of accidents are irrelevant?

      Because that doesn't solve the problem of mass surveillance, which you seem to be sympathetic to. I guess when it comes to cars, all bets are off. This is why I am against mandatory license plates; they make mass surveillance easy. Just like how in many US states, your drivers license or state ID photo is put into the FBI's facial recognition database.

      We need better ways of obfuscating license plates to foil mass surveillance but ones which can't fool the human eye (since that could easily get you in trouble). Maybe just making it appear dirty would foil these things.

      I'm not sure why people suddenly become extremely authoritarian whenever it comes to cars.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:42AM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 23 2017, @07:42AM (#600545) Journal

        some speeding may not be dangerous

        Totally missing the point again. The law isn't stating that you are guilty of speeding and of being a danger to other road users, simply that you are speeding. If you are speeding then you are guilty - end of! But if you can justify it to the policeman who issues the ticket then perhaps he will accept your argument and let you off with a warning.

        These are typically proprietary corporation-controlled algorithms

        Radar speed traps rely simply on the Doppler effect and we, as a technically astute and knowledgeable group, know that there is no interpretation necessary. Physics is physics. Now if you are saying that some radar speed traps are rather more complicated than is necessary, then perhaps you ought to sort that problem out rather than just commit an offence?

        Because that doesn't solve the problem of mass surveillance, which you seem to be sympathetic to.

        Which has nothing to do with a discussion about speed cameras saving lives. And nowhere have I stated that that I support or I am sympathetic to mass-surveillance. That is a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack by suggesting that I do support such things. You voted your politicians into power - you should vote them out if you don't like the 'mass-surveillance' that you appear to be suffering under.

        I'm not sure why people suddenly become extremely authoritarian whenever it comes to cars.

        Oh, it's not just cars. I think we should enforce laws that combat murderers, burglars, rapists, con-men, drug dealers, thieves - in fact, I have that view that someone breaking the law should be punished appropriately. That doesn't necessarily mean harshly.

(1)