Slashdot Mirror
Arizona Backs Off Its Speed Camera Program
crimeandpunishment writes to inform us that Arizona is putting the brakes to a controversial and contentious speed camera program. The cameras have been used along highways in the Phoenix area and in vans throughout the state. While the cameras are used throughout the country, Arizona's program was the widest use of the technology, and the decision to drop it is a setback for those who argue that the cameras slow speeders, reduce accidents, and free up police for more serious matters. "The camera program was instituted by Brewer's predecessor, Janet Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary. Cameras were introduced in September 2008 and were added until all 76 were up and running by January 2009. Lawmakers considered repeal proposals within months, but set the issue aside and appealed for calmer debate when a passing motorist fatally shot a camera-van operator doing paperwork in his marked vehicle in April 2009."
We're not the UK yet, we don't need this crap here.
Why not repurpose them and put them on the border? You know, since Arizona is so into stopping illegals...
Living With a Nerd
Stop being stupid.
The cameras weren't removed because someone shot one of the camera-van operators. The decision on whether or not to remove the cameras was postponed so that the murder wouldn't influence the decision, the *exact* *opposite* of what you suggest.
Can you read? Or do you just not care?
Too many idiots go flying through construction zones putting construction works and other motorists in danger.
Cite?
Specifically that people speeding in construction zones is an actual problem in AZ that causes injuries/deaths.
Speed cameras, like any other Big Brother tools, reproduce by binary fission. Usually, once you agree to one, suddenly you find yourself facing down the lens everywhere you go. Just look at the folks across the ocean. They used to be a proud empire, now even their most fervent US-mockers recognize the extent to which their freedom has been curtailed.
The fact that folks in Arizona managed to get rid of the cameras is a testament to the fact that at least some of the U.S. still values their freedom, and that the Big Brother is not yet fully in control.
Also, if you read the article it appears as if that one incident wasn't the chief reason the cameras were scrapped, but rather that it was a contentious issue for the November ballot that they didn't want to deal with.
Yes that seems insane to me. Will they repeal the law against theft because someone might get shot preventing a robbery?
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
speeding cameras are really about making money and do little to increase public safety. How many times do people have to catch the read light cameras being intentially set with short yellows to figure that out (the yellow is changed short as many cameras operate at a loss if they don't) If the companies that make and operate them were forced to be a non-profit with the highest paid employee no more than $85k in total compensation I wonder how many people would be pushing them?
It's because of all those monkey drivers.
bah.
I don't get it. You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple. This ain't a pretty please with sugar on top think of the children type thing. One thing I hear a lot from people being stopped is "don't you have better things to do than to stop me speeding?" With a camera in place, these police officers need not be keeping the roads safe when any normal person can regulate speed perfectly well themselves.
Gatsometers have limitations true, but an average speed camera check (pictures taken at say 1 mile intervals and working out the av. speed from that) is reliable and pretty solid.
Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it then yeah, they're not going to improve things. If, however, people go "there's a speed camera - what speed should I be doing? Better make sure I don't exceed the limit" then you're fine. They're only a money making scheme because people are too stupid and arrogant to keep to the speed limit.
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak. Speed cameras allow a threshold (although they don't have to in the UK, by law) and can be tested and calibrated.
(Said as a former driver who now mainly cycles - but it applies to both parts of my commuting life)
Gee, if you follow the logic for the immigration law passed in Arizona, speeders are doing something ILLEGAL so why shouldn't ANY Means to stop the illegal behaivor be used. Speeders probably kill as many if not more people then the supposed criminal element crossing the border. In fact the cameras free up the police who won't have to run speed traps to search and arrest illegal Aliens. But I guess this particular enforcement is unpopular with the voters so all that high minded "were just doing what's right" logic goes to the wayside.
cite? I'll help, my commute every morning. Speed limit is 60mph in the zone. 45 when workers present.
I deal with a bulk of nuts doing 75+ weaving through traffic twice a day. They never slow to 45 for the workers, and get all road ragey on those that dare to do the posted limits.
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
On the highways, away from residential areas, speeding laws are generally solely structured to bring in more income.
In NY, there are areas where highways have 50mph speed limits... or even 45mph... despite a wide, straight (or nearly so) well-paved road.
Ultimately, laws are meant to be the projection of the will of the people, moderated by the Constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court... and we don't want the speed cameras.
I like the idea of strict enforcement, I hate the currently implemented use of selective enforcement which has lead state and local governments to utilize "speed enforcement" as a revenue generation racket. This was made very clear and apparent in the state of Virginia which, in 2006 implemented "Civil Remedial" fees in order to help fill short gaps in the state budget. This is a very nasty habit state governments have gotten into in order to avoid increasing taxes.
Strict enforcement will cause a public backlash against the laws. The right choice would be to reassess most posted speed limits, and make the appropriate fixes to traffic areas that have used the invisible barrier of "low speeds" to protect the public.
20th century Marxism is not progress...
Well this is the same state that passed the law that effectively makes people of latino descent (or anyone with something odd about them) need to carry their birth certificate or other ID on them at all times, regardless of their nationality. They also passed a law requiring that their presidential candidates need to prove they were born in the U.S. What did you expect from the state ranked 50th in education? Somehow I don't expect enlightened thinking and rationality out of the bunch running AZ right now...
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
if you want to live in a big brother country I would suggest china. They even do the thinking for you. The US does not need this kind of crap, especially when speeding cameras are only about money and not about safety.
That depends entirely on if the speed limit is set with any regard to what a safe speed is for the area.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You can also hide the speed cameras, artificially lower the speed limit, make the camera on a hair trigger (or even trigger slightly below the speed limit and misreport.)
Thing about speed cameras is that the focus rarely seems to be on actually getting traffic to flow at a safe speed.
I've seen some good systems which focus on indicating to drivers when they're going too fast.(rather than trying to keep them from realising they've slipped over the limit so you can fine them)
Traffic lights suspended over the road, if you're going above the speed limit it goes orange, then red.
As you drop bellow the speed limit it goes green again, you only get done for speeding if you fly through the red.
It sounds odd but since there are lots of them and people are used to them it's quite safe and it keeps traffic at a steady speed.
With the current system they seem only too happy to let you speed as long as they can get money out of you for it.
Imagine if you will a state where theft were punished only with a fine and then instead of trying to prevent thefts the police concentrated purely on issuing fines.
I agree it sounds that way, but in this case it's a real and present danger. We're not talking about some obscure law or politicians whim. Speeding through a school zone during school hours is just a _stupid_ thing to do.
Shit, I worry about driving on side roads for fear of a 5 year old chasing a ball at dusk. Obviously you can't stop driving in school zones or in residential areas, but you can _stop_ being a jackass and at least realize you're driving a 2 ton chunk of metal that will snap a kid in two in an instant.
That is why picture enforcement of school zone speed limits _is_ something I would support.
They don't do anything to slow down speeders. If anything they contribute to accidents and traffic problems since speeders will slam on their brakes when they see one.
In Europe, speeding camera's are common and it's also common to shoot them, burn them or otherwise vandalize them: http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
That's the typical short-sighted libertarian response: Rather than advocate fixing the timing on the yellow lights, which is the correct solution to the problem, you want to throw the baby out with the bath water and remove the lights entirely.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Maybe they can reconfigure them to look for brown people... That seems to be in vogue there, lately.
Or maybe we do, in conjunction with raised speed limits on roads where such things are suitable. That would make me happy.
speeding cameras are really about making money and do little to increase public safety. How many times do people have to catch the read light cameras being intentially set with short yellows to figure that out (the yellow is changed short as many cameras operate at a loss if they don't) If the companies that make and operate them were forced to be a non-profit with the highest paid employee no more than $85k in total compensation I wonder how many people would be pushing them?
Are we talking about speeding cameras or red light cameras?
Sure, at an intersection with a camera you can set the yellow short and catch people that really aren't doing anything wrong...
But a speed camera is set to tag people going over a certain speed. If you're doing the posted speed limit you shouldn't get in trouble.
Yeah, obviously, there's room to abuse pretty much anything on the planet... But I would think it somewhat harder to abuse a speed camera.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Y'know what gets people to slow down? A real cop, lighting you up, pulling you over, and having to sit by the side of the road (as you watch every car that was doing the speed limit glide on by for 20 minutes :) as you await your fate.
I got my first ticket in 20 years of driving during a recent road trip. I knew I was speeding, he knew I was speeding, and after he wrote me up, I actually thanked him for the reality check. Had it been a camera, I'd have paid the fine and not changed my behavior for the rest of the trip, because I wouldn't have known about it until I got home. As it was, I kept it to within 5 of the limit for the rest of my trip, and to my surprise, even in the extremely remote areas of the state - we're talking the kind of places where you're the only car within miles miles - slowing it down wasn't as boring as I'd thought it would be.
Speed cameras don't deter speeders. Immediate negative feedback does.
legislating against jackassery is impossible.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Follow the money not the murder. There taking them out because too many people ignore the mailed ticket at it's too expensive to hand server everyone. Remember the accused has legal rights to be properly server, you can't just charge, try and convict someone. It is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. Besides I have seen more accidents and near accidents from idiots looking up too late and slamming on their brakes to count.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
And also go after the left lane hogs? Here in GA (I-75N) we get a lot of the *snow birds who insist on staying in the left lane as they go through GA and folks who want to speed are dashing around them. The old people in the land yachts are usually pretty courteous and stay to the right with their other car in tow. And then you get the idiots who are on their cell phone who are traveling at 50, then 75, then 60, then 70 - and it's worse when their in the left hand lane.
* Snow birds: retired people (mostly old) who travel to Florida during the Winter and then move back to their homes in the North during the Summer.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
These were revenue generators, period.
Seriously? You can't do five minutes of your own research? I simply copied and pasted your above statement into Google, and this link, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/highwayworkzones/ , was fourth from the top. It includes a lot of documents that are relevant, including this useful summary:
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site. During this same period there were 9325 deaths in the construction industry. The 844 worker deaths in road construction represent 9% of all deaths in construction. More than half of these fatalities were attributable to a worker being struck by a vehicle or mobile equipment. Workplace fatalities that occur at a road construction site typically account for 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of all workplace fatalities annually.
of this document: Source: Fatal occupational injuries at road construction sites
Road construction fatality rates are disproportionately higher than most other occupations. As to whether or not Arizona is more or less prone to road construction fatalities, the document only ranks the top and bottom five, and Arizona was in neither. But even if their work zones were among the safest in the nation, that's not saying much. It's still a very hazardous occupation.
Further summarizing the document's contents, of the 693 fatalities between 1995 and 2002, 509 were due to a worker being struck by a vehicle. The rest were "construction" types of accidents, including falls, struck by objects, contact with electricity, etc. Of the 509 deaths caused by vehicles, 363 occurred in the roadway, and 119 occurred off to the side of the road.
So don't delude yourself for a moment into thinking that work zones aren't dangerous places for workers, or that traffic isn't the primary cause of death for the workers. It is.
John
Good, seeing how that's not what I'm suggesting. All I said was that I support the use of cameras to enforce school zone speed limits. I'm sorry this is so hard to understand.
Speeding tickets are expensive because not all speeders get caught. So if you have a system that catches everybody, the ticket rate should be substantially reduced. A small chance of a large ticket and a guaranteed chance of a small ticket should have similar deterrence rates. Anything more is a money grab.
I'd like to take this moment to remember the common argument, 'Why do you need to worry about privacy if you have nothing to hide?'.
What happens with the government of Arizona uses security (or speeding) cameras to find Latinos? If your skin looks a little brown, you'd be taking a risk even stepping out onto a city street. And Latinos are the only group to face discrimination. What happens when the government passes laws (or the executive branch decides) to discriminate against Islam -- some European governments already have such laws. What happens when they use Facebook to find Muslims? During the Red Scare in the 1950s, many people lost their careers and reputations simply because they associated with alleged communists 10-20 years before. Have you friended anyone who might be considered objectionable in 2020 or 2030?
The public tends to be reactive about problems. From the Great Depression and WWII, to the Red Scare and Vietnam, to today's Iraq War and Great Recession, we watch obvious problems build before our eyes, but we seem unable to exercise the foresight to imagine their consequences and prevent them. All of those disasters were preventable, with obvious solutions and causing a fraction of the suffering. But we don't act until people suffer, and often die, on a large scale. Unfortunately, I think the same will be true of modern information technology and privacy.
Police enforcement will do. No need to infringe on our privacy for that. And if you say - you're in public, you don't need privacy - I say, wait until someone sends you a picture to your house of you going 1 mph over the speed limit while your mistress is in the car with you.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
These are traffic cameras... they're not going to take pictures of your bizarre porn or illegal music collection. They won't divulge embarressing information about you at your next dinner party, nor will they be used to frame you by a shadow government!
> Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it
> then yeah, they're not going to improve things.
I wouldn't say I have been repeatedly caught, I have gotten one speeding ticket and two that would have been but they did me a supposed "favor" and ticketed me for something else. Either way they get their hour and a half on their time sheet for a ticket (yes they do here in MA) and my insurance company still got to bilk me for supposedly being less safe.
What have I learned? Be more vigilant in looking for pigs on the road. I have learned that my government does the bidding of insurance companies. Thats about it. Overall, I try not to be intimidated by thugs and let them dictate my driving style since, I know I am safe. Just look at my record. Its mostly paperwork violations (because, as we all know, paying $50 to the RMV for a renewal is one of the most important habbits of a safe driver) and speeding stops... the one accident thats still even on my record was when some road raging moron slammed on his breaks in front of me while I was trying to change lanes in heavy traffic, called the police, and went about raving about how I was swerving in traffic because I made one lane change to avoid blocking an intersection at a red light. Seriously.
All they do is enforce laws, whether its absolutely retarded to do so or not.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish :)
The real reason AZ dropped this: they couldn't get the "stars n bars" detector working, so *white* people might actually be affected by it.
Multiple anecdotes (let alone single ones) aren't data.
The question in your case would be: does lowering the speed limit to 45mph in the construction area actually make things safer? If it then causes a mix of 75 and 45 traffic, the answer is- probably not. The goal here is to make things safer, right? Not enforce arbitrary limits because it makes you feel better. Has the big push for low work zone speed limits mixed with 2-5x fines actually reduced fatalities and serious injuries? If so- thats the cite requested.
Yes! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
There are many laws, and the fact that something is law, doesn't make it gospel. Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow. If it isn't gospel, then it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, the defence of "I didn't agree with the guy who's trying to uphold the law, so I shot him" might be even more tenuous, but that's another kettle of fish :)
Laws are there for a reason. Doesn't mean it's a good reason, and doesn't mean that I can't oppose a law, and aim to have it repealed.
I used to think the 'council worker' type workpeople had it easy, leaning on their shovels all day etc. But they are out there in 40C degree heat, and 0C degree cold, working meters from cars that are supposed to be doing 40kph but aren't doing anything like it (i never realised how scary that was until I had to change a tyre on a busy road - i got as far off as I could but was nervous the whole time. I definitely have a whole lot more respect for the job than I used to.
As for the "citation needed" statement, if the OP had spent the 5 minutes providing some sort of citation it would save everyone else spending 5 minutes. Too many people post opinion and speculation as fact on the internet and they should be called on it, especially on a public forum where stuff gets re-quoted as fact (see here :)
Oh, and the fifth link down from your query is this: Literture Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries. I'll paste from the abstract of the first document cited:
16. Abstract
The relationship between vehicle travel speeds and resulting pedestrian injury was reviewed in the literature and in existing data sets. Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively.
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
John
You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple.
When you start following speed limits and making complete stops when you're on duty in a patrol car, I'll start to think that you really believe that law is important. Until then, you're just a meter maid in my book, and I'll treat you as such.
Finally, someone is thinking of the children! ... rare thing on /.
I've often thought a great PSA would be some soccer mom, waving a gun around in her hand while blabbing away on her cell phone with her kids all gathered around her, trying to take aim at a target. Then a narrator would say something like "You wouldn't do this with your kids around, would you?" then flash over to the same soccer mom, blabbing away on her cell phone while she is driving with all her kids in the back seat...
Cars have killed more people in this country than guns. And that's saying quite a bit, since guns were specifically designed to kill. Every time I get behind the wheel of my car, I remind myself of two things. One, I am operating a loaded weapon that has no safety other than my own diligence in recognizing dangers, both to myself and the other people around me. And two, no matter what, it is better to not have an accident at all. No matter what . This is personal experience, 5 weeks in the hospital (2 weeks in an induced coma), 3 surgeries, a lifetime with pain and over $300,000 in medical bills, a portion of which was covered by insurance. And I was the victim, not the perpetrator.
Anything we can do to slow down idiots and make them more cognizant of their responsibilities as vehicle operators, the better. If we have to continually zing repeat offenders in the wallet, then let's do it. If we end up going to a point system where your license to drive (which is a privilege, btw) is suspended after a specified number of violations, then let's do it. Right now, this all just seems more like a ploy to make some authority money rather than insure public safety, though.
The use of COPS doesn't seem people from speeding past the school near me. They _often_ have police officers idling around when students are coming or leaving. What makes you think cameras will be any better at stopping jackasses from speeding?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Yeah, we have a lot of Department of Transportation (DoT) jokes:
Q: What's orange and sleeps three?
A: A DoT truck.
Q: Why did the DoT worker boycott a Japanese company?
A: For inventing a shovel that leans by itself.
In Minnesota, we have two seasons: winter, and road construction.
I'm sure there are others. But yeah, I do take the work zones very seriously. I'm scared for those guys, and I'd hate myself if I hurt someone because I was speeding through their workplace.
John
Where is the percentage of accidents that would have been avoided if the driver were traveling at the posted speed limit?
I wasn't arguing that the workers aren't in danger- they do a tough, dangerous job, and if they are killed doing it, its a footnote on the back page, not a full front page spread that cops get. I really appreciate the work they do.
Thats certainly a step in the right direction study-wise (a world better than the above AC's 'cite'), but I don't see anything in the study that says speeding vehicles and/or lower limits made things safer. In many semi-permanent construction sites things could be done to make things safer for all, and mixing 45mph traffic with 75mph traffic isn't the first one I'd try. Unless of course, someone has done that kind of study and found that regardless of the chaos it causes it is the best way to go.
The common knee-jerk reaction to problems on the road is- lower the limit 10, 20, 30 mph. Guess what? It rarely works, but it does create a nice revenue stream.
With the current system they seem only too happy to let you speed as long as they can get money out of you for it.
Imagine if you will a state where theft were punished only with a fine and then instead of trying to prevent thefts the police concentrated purely on issuing fines.
You hit the nail on the head here, and speed cameras is a technical "solution" to a human problem. I live in Norway where speed cameras are common as well as other measures to try to prevent people from doing something not desirable. You can't purchase beer after 20:00 in weekdays and 18:00 on Saturdays in food stores for instance. The thing is, in the example with the beer, it reduces drinking because alcohol is less available. The problem as I see it though, is that you still have a rotten society full of heavy drinkers, it is just that they didn't make it to the store in time that particular day. The same goes for the speed cameras, if a electronic gadget is what keeping (some) people from speeding, what does it say about us as a society? What we need is driving education that actually teaches people a thing or two about the actual dangers of speeding, and do something about the roads that have an unproportionally high rate of accidents. Also, make sure the roads are safe enough for what most people consider a sensible speed limit for that road.
Dvorak on Doomtech
So whats the relevant conclusion? That work zones should have a 20mph speed limit? Of course getting hit by a slower moving car is less likely to kill you. What is less clear is whether artificially low speed limits on freeways/hiways prevent accidents.
the cities and counties are still free to spam the roads with red-light and speeding cameras. You can't win against these things because there's too much money involved and it's going to private companies who then give half of it to the reelection campaigns of corrupt local officials. Once again, capitalism at it's finest.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I hate school zones. Are these kids too stupid to stay out of the road? Is this the only place where children ever cross the street? What about all the accidents from the dumbass that slams on his brakes from 45 to 20 when he notices the school zone at the last second? Why can't the same idiot go back to 45 when the zone ends? The only reason these stupid zones exist is so cops can make money writing tickets. If the kids are too dumb to stay out of the road, then let darwin do his job.
".. Worker being struck by a vehicle," does not always mean that they were hit by a passenger car. Sometimes it does, but I suspect that the majority of those incidents were along the line of, "run over by a (backhoe | forklift | dumptruck)."
In fact, "In 54 percent (274) of the cases, a truck struck the worker. Of these trucks, 36 percent were dump trucks, 21 percent were pickup trucks, and 19 percent were semitrailer, tractor trailer, or trailer trucks. Automobiles were the source in 28 percent (143) of all cases of struck by vehicle or mobile equipment at road construction sites. Finally, construction machinery, which includes backhoes, levelers, planers, scrapers, steamrollers, and road pavers, accounted for 11 percent (56) of the struck by vehicle or mobile equipment fatalities." In short, we tend to run over our own.
This data is also over a seven year period. Please read your own data, and note that it points to traffic not being the primary cause of of death for workers. Most of those trucks and some of those cars are probably workers. I pity the poor bastard that was taken out by a steamroller.
SIG: HUP
...and you're not obligated to return the stolen property, just pay the fine of 70% of black market value of stolen wares...
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If it's a legitimate safety issue, then it's worth having an actual human police officer monitor or patrol the area. That's quite a bit different from the "administrative" issue of going a little faster than the speed limit on an open highway with no such hazards. The joke there is that speeding is not precisely illegal, it's just taxed. Which leads me to another point (from the summary)...
If we really cared about freeing up police for more serious matters, we'd stop prosecuting nonviolent drug users. Do the research sometime and look at how many cops, courts, and much jail/prison space is currently devoted to these victimless crimes. Then imagine what that effort would accomplish if it were put towards violent criminals and scammers who directly harm other people with their crimes.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Asking for cites is trolling now? No wonder there is so much bullshit here and so little truth.
In the Maryland area, we have something vaguely similar; a speedometer that tells you your current speed as you're driving up the road. It flashes at 10 MPH over the limit to let you know you're going a bit too fast. One I know of is on a smaller, slower road with a nasty curve to it. Only issue is that, on a two-lane road, you're not sure if it's reporting on you or the next lane. Granted, if it's flashing, you may want to make sure you're going slower than the next lane over just to make sure.
I haven't gotten a speeding/red light ticket so far in my lifetime, but given the monetization that's been going on with the cameras in some locales, I don't trust those handling the cameras (both private AND public entities). Things like this (warnings, speedometer) that visually alert you are good, because it's something that actively raises the issue of safety in motorists. And helps to weed out those that actually don't give a damn.
This is the experience in the UK - Speed cameras at best get people to slow down at the Camera
They speed before it, they speed right up again after it .... so the traffic does not flow it goes at full speed except at the cameras ... ...and yes the only people who get caught are the tourists (to see the camera too late), and the stupid
It does nothing to prevent accidents except at the camera (and even that is just shifted 100yrds up the road)
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I concede that you and I don't make the laws, we have to abide by them, but still it's not a defence to say "I don't agree this stupid law."
Actually, it can be. There's a legal concept called "jury nullification," where if the jury thinks the law is bad they can refuse to convict someone of breaking it.
It doesn't get used much, and it pisses a lot of people off (you will likely make the judge very mad for suggesting it.) But if you can convince a jury to agree with you that the law is wrong, you can walk away.
John
I'd argue that technical solutions can solve human problems(not all but some).
In my example the system gives clear obvious feedback to drivers which I think is superior to a system which tries to avoid letting you know when you're going a little too fast.
Then there's the problem of things like 17 miles of 'construction with no work being done, unless the people in the cop cars were all the workers on break... (Nevada, in the that case, but Arizona, when traveling through it seemed fond of Construction zone ending, then ~200 foot ahead, another construction zone, and multiple times I saw a cop there.)
I agree in principle with the idea of being careful about construction zones, but I'm kind of cynical about how the laws are, and the increased fines are abused by certain states. (Mostly those in the center and southwest of the US, but I haven't traveled by car much to the east for a while.) If there was work actually being done, fine.
(Also, say what you will about California, in my experience, when CalTrans had a job, it got done in a short and reasonable amount of time.)
Y'know what gets people to slow down? A real cop, lighting you up, pulling you over, and having to sit by the side of the road (as you watch every car that was doing the speed limit glide on by for 20 minutes :) as you await your fate.
Here's what I think would also slow people down in an educational way: A device reading the speed of vehicles (no camera needed), made very obvious, followed by a traffic light 50-80 meters further down the road which will turn red when someone passes the reading device at too high a speed. So that going at or below the speed limit is the fastest way to get through.
Alternatively, since license plate readers should be getting cheaper, a reading device plus a display a bit further which displays your license plate, name of the car's owner and speed when you go too fast. A flashing light "reduce speed" on its own helps a lot where these things are installed in England; with the additional information I think it would work very well indeed to reduce speed.
But it is reasonable to say, I don't agree with this stupid law, to violate it if that seems appropriate at the time, and then to take whatever punishment the law metes out. Just because something is passed by the legislature, that does not make it right or just, even if it is approved by the President and the Supreme Court (insert relevant institutions as needed for countries other than the US). And it is the duty of all citizens to ignore unjust laws, and to refuse to punish people charged under unjust laws if you are on the jury. Citizens are part of the checks and balances.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
i've never seen so much "won't somebody think of the children" BS on slashdot.... the sentiment here so far seems to be "well i don't speed (liars), so i don't mind the cameras", which is silly, i don't sell crack or run a basement casino but i still appreciate and recognize the importance of 4th amendment protections even though, were the police to kick down my door, they would find nothing amiss. its been mentioned quite a few times already but look at Britain with its mass of CCTV cameras and speed cameras, i don't see how ANYONE can look at that system and think, yes, lets bring that to America! There are times when we need to choose between preservation of personal liberties and nanny state garbage, even if the nanny state garbage could save a few lives in the long run... just in the same way i'm happily willing to face an "increased risk of a terrorist act" if we scuttled the decidedly un-american and hypocritically named Patriot Act in its entirety...
I always try to find out how fast I can get before passing those signs...
Has the big push for low work zone speed limits mixed with 2-5x fines actually reduced fatalities and serious injuries? If so- thats the cite requested.
Well, I can tell you that I would rather be hit by a car going 45 than 75. It's also not just the risk of impact, but the ability to maneuver with more time to spare. You slow down in a school zone so you can brake or swerve if someone walks in front of your car, that is a similar reason for having slower speed limits through work zones.
Speeding 11mph+ in a work zone in Pennsylvania is a 15-day suspension, 3+ points, and double the fine. Source (Warning, PDF)
Of course, this is all purely speculative. YMMV.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Absolutely. All laws must be obeyed without exception, and if you don't like speed camera, then you can take the bus. Don't worry about it being crowded; you can always evict a nego to make room.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Asking for cites is trolling now? No wonder there is so much bullshit here and so little truth.
So slashdot is now to become slashwiki? You can't post here unless you cite your sources? Wow. I don't know why you even come here if that is what you think.
I'm guessing he doesn't care.
So whats the relevant conclusion? That work zones should have a 20mph speed limit? Of course getting hit by a slower moving car is less likely to kill you. What is less clear is whether artificially low speed limits on freeways/hiways prevent accidents.
Your bias is showing a bit, I think. Your challenge:
Specifically that people speeding in construction zones is an actual problem in AZ that causes injuries/deaths.
Since we can now all read the links above and agree that 'artificially low speed limits' reduce fatalities, you've opted to shift the discussion to just 'accidents' in general, without any respect to "injuries/deaths". However, this would NOT obviate the value in the limits. The reduction in death is enough to slow drivers down while in construction zones. The cost of doing so is assumed to be far lower than even a single human life... ...unless you're ready to shift the debate between the value of life and the right to drive as fast as you want.
You asked for citations, got them, and now are re-framing the debate. Why?
Again, I suspect bias.
Asking for cites is trolling now? No wonder there is so much bullshit here and so little truth.
Since when is bitching about mods "Insightful"?
Or, better put... how many of your socks have mod points?
Somehow, from what I experience, if somebody speeds away from residential areas...he is also quite likely to speed in them.
And such low limits on highways might be just as well because of traffic flow and noise control
One that hath name thou can not otter
Well this is the same state that passed the law that effectively makes people of latino descent (or anyone with something odd about them) need to carry their birth certificate or other ID on them at all times, regardless of their nationality.
Well, obviously that's not true if you have actually read the law. But, we shouldn't let that get in the way. Once it's done, damage is hard to undo.
What did you expect from the state ranked 50th in education? [morganquitno.com]
I don't care for herring, but I am fond of Red Snapper. Too bad it's out of season right now.
The enlightened thinking for which you're looking first occurred c.1940.
8 U.S.C. 1304. Please read (d) and (e). The AZ law attempts to pick up the ball the Feds dropped.
On motorway roadworks here in the UK, we tend to have average speed cameras these days. They read your plate as you pass one gantry and if you arrive at the next too soon, bam, ticket. Four of those and that's 12 points on your licence, and that's a ban. In my experience, compliance with the 50 limit is damn near 100% (though it seems that certain BMW drivers are exempt), and that makes it a hell of a lot easier to maintain your own speed. With the Gatsos, you'd always get the mix of speeds you described, and the slamming on of anchors at the camera points. I would find my speed creeping up to 55 or 60, the truck driver right behind doing the same thing and getting upset when I then corrected it. I hate average speed cameras with a passion, but through roadworks where people are directly at risk I have no problem with it.
The 3rd or 4th time they get a ticket for being that stupid they might catch on to the fact that speeding there is a bad idea.
Absolutely. All laws must be obeyed without exception, and if you don't like speed camera, then you can take the bus. Don't worry about it being crowded; you can always evict a nego to make room.
This is exactly what I am talking about; if the law is wrong, change it (IANAL, but I understand it is now legal to mix on buses now in the US.) What you can't do is just say that you don't agree with the law. I'm under no illusions, wrong laws have been passed. I'm just saying that to ignore unjust laws is completely the wrong thing to do.
Or, better put... how many of your socks have mod points?
Just enough to mod you to oblivion!!
Seriously though- I barely read or mod slashdot enough to maintain the one account- I certainly wouldn't bother with extras.
More permissive laws where applicable, with better monitoring only for those who step outside of those laws. Unfortunately, what we really get is less permissive laws designed to make more money, with monitoring abused to all manner of vile end. As soon as we take humans out of the loop, we can have your surveillance society. Until then, greater surveillance leads to greater abuse. And ultimately, spending money on surveillance is futile. Spend money on increasing quality of life, and you won't need so much surveillance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So would you approve of mounting weapons on the cameras? You know, for immediate negative feedback.
Should it be "Arizona Backs Off Its Speed Camera Program" or "Arizona Back Off Their Speed Camera Program"?
For some reason the headline just seems odd. Is it correct or not?
Just curious.
My guess is that their beef isn't with people who drive the speed limit, but rather with people who drive no faster than the lane to their right.
If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over. Sure, it's the law if that's what motivates you, but more importantly it's the right, proper, social, moral thing to do. Share the road.
This message is not directed at the parent AC; it is directed at anyone who thinks it's okay to ignore lane courtesy out of a misplaced sense of speed superiority.
Someone above made the same conclusion.
Not everyone is going to slow down, and many don't. This creates a situation where vehicles are moving at widely different speeds in a driving environment thats often been narrowed.
Just yesterday I was alongside a Semi that was trying to race to the merge and about creamed my family.
It's great that the workers have a lower speed limit to make them feel warm and fuzzy, but the reality is they are likely to be creamed by the car moving at 75~85 that has just bounced off the car doing 45.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I'm guessing you don't like the Arizona law that violates the 4th amendment rights of anyone who isn't Caucasian. If you *do* happen to like that law... I'd love to hear how you are deluding yourself into thinking the two laws are completely dissimilar. Otherwise, I have no beef with you. Good day.
Then your fans are out in force today...
Gratz!
Red light cameras are a bit different - they've got a variable you can tweak.
Except, of course, speed cameras have a variable too, the posted speed limit. Several times now we've seen speed limits intentionally lowered in ways to make conditions less safe, but provide greater revenue. We've also seen instances where speed limits change radically in areas where visibility of the sign is poor. The basic problem is, we can't trust the people placing the cameras and deciding the speed limits to act in the best interests of the people instead of the best interests of their department's budget. Until that problem is addressed (either by placing the decisions in the hands of a neutral party or establishing strict regulation and enforcement of how they are used), both red light cameras and speed cameras will likely create as much risk to the public as benefit.
The goal here is to make things safer, right? Not enforce arbitrary limits because it makes you feel better.
Wrong. The goal *should* be to make things safer, but in fact it is exactly to enforce an arbitrary limit because it massages a sense of moral superiority.
Just like there are anti-fun-sex ideologues, there are anti-convenient-driving ideologues.
Nobody ever thinks of the chicken either.
[signature]
That's pretty shaky ground. Laws are there for a reason. You can't just chop and choose what laws you want to follow...
Sure you can! I do this every day.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You "can't"? Do you seriously not understand that bad laws only get changed when people of courage and principle stand up (or in Rosa Park's case, sit down) and challenge them?
The repeal of prohibition, universal suffrage, race rights, women's rights in the workplace and inside their own uterus, and a silly little thing called the American republic, all of these were won, not granted.
At this point, I'm not sure who's trolling who, so I'll leave you to advocate jailing the likes of Rosa Parks for saying that she didn't agree with a law. Go on, have the courage to say it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Along the state's southern borders, so they can detect anyone crossing without the proper permit, so they can hold them until someone pays the $100000 fine to release them for illegaly entering Arizona.
Oh- I probably am biased. I didn't intentionally switch up accidents with deaths, I'd take either. As myself and others have pointed out- while there are several citations listed, none of them actually show that lowering the speed limit helps. Part of the point here is- just because the limit is low, and heavily enforced doesn't mean the fatality rate would go down. _If_ everyone could be counted on driving attentively and responsibly, and following the speed limit, this whole thing would probably be a moot point, but they won't and you'll still have people causing accidents in work zones.
Presumably the purpose of speed limits is safety- if thats the case, lets see the studies that show that works. Not a bunch of studies that show that when accidents do happen slower is better.
I'll also say that while speed limits are for safety- there is obviously a trade off. Otherwise we'd all just have cars with top speeds of 20mph.
>>They're only a money making scheme because people are too stupid and arrogant to keep to the speed limit.
Stupid and arrogant?
People generally know better than the state what an appropriate speed limit is on a road. Traffic engineering uses the rule of thumb that 90% of people drive at a safe speed, and 10% of drivers, by contrast, are reckless fools. However, the safe speed crowd generally drives the same speed on a road - regardless of the speed limit - unless the speed limit law is very strictly enforced.
The interstate system (at least here in CA) is the worst for this, with the interstates exempt from the speed tests that the state uses on normal roads to establish speed limits. They were designed with 75MPH in mind, but are artificially set much lower (at 65MPH in most places, or 70MPH in the country).
The politicians love it, since when the entire bloody interstate is driving 75MPH (which happens any time there's no traffic) CHP officers are able to give out tickets like candy.
I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but you never linked the fatalities to high speeds -- only to being struck by a vehicle. The accidents might be due to high speed, or might not -- and it's not reasonable to assume. I have to admit that I can't take the time right now to read the report and check for myself; I can only be bothered to make this comment.
And school zones. While I was going out to get some errands done I hit a school zone. Flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up. Obviously a warning that school is letting out and the zone is now 20MPH.
The road is a 4 lane (2 each way) and as you could guess where I'm going with this.. A SUV flies by me on the right and weaves through traffic doing at least 45. He/She also ran a yellow with a ton of kids waiting to cross.
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
Even better - put police officers there. Where I live, it's not uncommon to see a cop, sitting in the median, watching for speeders. He's readily visible, and has the effect of slowing people down. Even so, he or she is also regularly writing a ticket.
The problem with speed cameras is they have little direct deterrent effect - the are an after the fact gotcha (which often is not a traffic violation so they avoid having to deal with them in court) - and as such would not prevent the scenario you describe; unless the person knows the camera is there and even with signs they seem to catch a lot of people. If they didn't, they'd cost more than they produce and they'd be gone; "increased traffic safety" be damned (of course, we'd get some official explanation how they accomplished their goals and it was time to move on, etc., etc., etc.).
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
If all school zones had a flashing light that told you when they were active, they'd be a lot more useful. And if the cameras were active any time the light was flashing, it would be obvious when you had to pay attention. Further, since this is what the road cameras actually accomplish (making people slow down when in sight of them) this is the ideal application for such devices. Finally, it would only affect traffic flow when it was actually useful to do so, minimizing the uselessness-annoyance factor.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hundreds of children get out at the same time, they are like you on the way home after work. Some kids are dumb but it's more like unobservant or distracted. For SAFETY reasons the speedlimit is temporarily reduced. Nobody slams on their brakes at the 20mph sign, do they do this when leaving the 70mph highway to the 35mph side road? no, you slow down.
I'd rather inconvenience you for 500meters than have hundreds of kids crossing a potential killzone.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Forget about speeding...the real danger is in people who don't use turn signals but who drift, and sometimes weave, across lanes with absolutely no warning...and those pesky people who drive too slow for traffic in the passing (left hand) lane. These things are both illegal....I want cameras to ticket these assholes
"in fact it is exactly to enforce an arbitrary limit because it massages a sense of moral superiority"
Citation, please. Otherwise, STFU. As much as I distrust government, it does sometimes perform necessary and useful functions, and sometimes even accomplishes those. Speed limits are largely necessary, and usually appropriate. Your opinion on this is off in some corner, sulking over your last ticket. Grow up.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You know you just basically said "there's no point in speed limits anywhere because you then get a mix of speeds, since some people are speeding"? What, you want to tell me you really mean it?...
One that hath name thou can not otter
"...postponed so that the murder wouldn't influence the decision, the *exact* *opposite* of what you suggest."
Then maybe they should have murdered them all. Laws definitely will change when facing a violent uprising.
Let's not fall into the false dichotomy. This is not about, "We have the choice between traffic cameras and no policing at all," it's a choice between many alternatives. We shouldn't fall into black-and-white thinking when a third option -- posting a black-and-white at the scene -- is in fact the traditional solution!
So instead of actually looking at the road you have to look for cops, lights, whatever trying to driveby snipe you for income/ticket money. Great way to stop accidents guys.
Nope. I drive at completely reasonable speeds on limited access highways, which are often above the speed limit. I get a speeding ticket every few years. Most of the time they knock them down to non-moving violations. So every few years I have to pay $150 or so and usually have 1 or 2 points on my license. My insurance company does not seem to care.
I more than make up that twenty minutes by driving fifteen to twenty over the limit for the next thirty thousand miles.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Where is this, sounds like entrapment to me, The radar thinks the vehicle is over the limit, turns the light to red and sends a notice to the person for speeding and running a red light? I've seen far to many radars indicate that I was speeding when i heavy traffic conditions when in fact I was not.The radar usually gives a correct indication when I am the only vehicle in sight and only then when I am at a certain distance and in a certain portion of the radar beam. The fact that those who use radar pretend it is some kind of magical system that always works properly is a joke. In fact there are too many problems with automated radar systems to have it be accepted in a court of law. This does not stop the sellers of such systems and does not stop law enforcement from pretending that the systems work correctly. Every time I have gotten a speeding ticket based on radar I have managed to have it dismissed due to reasonable doubt that the system was operated properly or due to doubts about it's ability to work properly in the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the ticket.
I get what you're saying.. but who doesn't carry ID with them? I have had a photo ID since a baby (couldn't carry it obviously) but traveling around, my parents always had our passports. When i "became a big kid" and had a wallet, it held my photo ID and RedCross training cards. Then of course comes the Drivers License, pretty much THE id card for adults. You can't buy booze without it, you can't drive without it, you can be denied purchases at walmart without it (need it for your credit card or 18+ purchases like spraypaint and so on).
You talk about rationality, but it makes sense to me that almost everyone is already carrying some form of ID.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
The problem as I see it though, is that you still have a rotten society full of heavy drinkers, it is just that they didn't make it to the store in time that particular day. The same goes for the speed cameras, if a electronic gadget is what keeping (some) people from speeding, what does it say about us as a society?
It would say our society is filled with human beings, who are widely known to be rather selfish and occasionally evil.
You touched on it at the end of your comment, but my preferred solution is improved technology: is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
The angry people always harumph and tell everyone to slow down, and I don't understand that. If we MUST choose between safety and convenience, then I'm willing to go with safety (to an extent), but in this case I think it's a total false choice. Let's have both!
Once again, capitalism at it's finest.
I'm not sure what this has to do with capitalism.
These are government roads with cameras issuing government tickets, backed by a government police force.
The only "capitalism" here is that the government has contracted out some of the dirty work.
Obviously it's too late to solve this problem now, but I always wondered by schools are ever built near busy streets. Forget about the safety issues -- the distracting noise alone is a good enough reason to tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Busy streets should be near commercial businesses.
A couple of construction zones in Ohio do it differently. They have a guy in a truck with sticks to hog the whole road drive at the posted zone limit all day long, he slows down the idiots by making them not able to pass him. It's quite effective as all he needs to to is generate a "pressure wave" of cars bunched up and the average speed stays down.
but talk about a boring job. all day to day you drive up and down the construction zone over and over and over and over....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Do some research and try to find accidents that were caused solely by speeding. I do not mean accidents where "speed was a factor" but the actual impact was caused by the at-fault driver failing to yield right of way (indeed, the fact that someone is speeding is all the more reason not to pull out in front of them). I mean accidents caused by speeding alone; for one example, a case where (let's say) the tires could not come up with enough traction to keep the vehicle on the road at that speed, resulting in an accident. Or an accident caused by a hazard that the vehicle could have maneuvered around at the speed limit but could not maneuver around in time when exceeding it. Good luck, for these are difficult to find.
What my years in the auto insurance industry taught me were that two things are the primary cause of all the accidents and claim reports I saw: following too closely and failure to yield right of way. Most of the single-vehicle accidents did not involve high rates of speed, or at least the police reports did not mention speeding. Most of those involved people who fell asleep at the wheel, were drunk, were texting or otherwise engaged in distracted driving, or things of that nature. Yet "strangely enough" the emphasis of traffic enforcement is placed on speeding, likely because it happens frequently, is easy to demonstrate in court, and produces a lot of revenue for the state.
I laugh when my state plays public-service commercials on the radio talking about how you shouldn't speed and you should wear your seatbelt because the cops and the state care about your safety. Every time I hear those, I think "yeah, and if the ticket money went to charity I might just believe that."
The one place where speed limits make a lot of sense is also a place where accidents are relatively rare: residential neighborhoods where there may be children playing. Yet the cops don't seem to pay much attention to these areas because they don't generally have heavy traffic. I am much more likely to see a cop sitting near the 65mph highway running radar than anyplace where people live. If you assume that ticket revenue is what the state cares about, then this makes perfect sense. More traffic == more vehicles == more traffic violations == more tickets == more revenue for the state. To say this is about safety is a joke.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I don't know NY, but there are plenty of bits of England (or do you mean NYC, in which case I'll pick any large British city) where wide, straight, well-paved roads have 40mph-50mph limits. Generally it's because there are lots of junctions, or people walking alongside the road, or heavy traffic.
The M25 (the 117-mile 4+4 lane motorway around London) sometimes has 50mph limits (the limit changes, depending on congestion -- when it's busy lowering the limit increases traffic flow).
Just because it's on the books, doesn't mean it's right.
So take it off the books. You know, people actually have the power to do this...
Speed limits are useless because they create irritatingly "slow" moving obstructions, from which your speeding car migh bump off
Got it.
Oh, and you provide great example why cameras are fine - eventually those "many not slowing down" get the idea (or get their license suspended, whatever). Hey, one might catch semis racing to the merge...
One that hath name thou can not otter
If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it
Yeah, silly American citizens, trying to complete their chores and commutes conveniently. What dummies. /rolls eyes
legislating against jackassery is impossible.
Bullshit.
Not only is it possible, but it is encouraged. The legislation would need to be aimed at negative reinforcement for bad behavior, rather than preventing it, but it needs to exist for society as we know it to function:
1) Noise ordinances
2) Indecency laws
3) Intoxication laws
4) Vehicle regulation
etc, etc, etc
Speeding cameras do racial profiling. A rich powerful politician or a cop found with a speeding violation gets a caution. At most.
I think you missed the point of it.
It changes as you approach the light if you're going above the speed limit and only tickets you if you *remain* over the speed limit and go through it.
As opposed to the current norm where it's exaclty the same only it doesn't show any indicator to the driver.
Yet you call the former entrapment vs the latter.
All the crap about radar guns aside the point should be to get people to drive safely rather than collecting as many fines as possible.
The vast majority of current systems focus on collecting fines with little reguard to safety.
In the rail industry, we are not allowed to get closer than four feet of the nearest rail on the right-of-way. Perhaps DOT's should explore a similar requirement.
Citation, please?
Did you take note of the license plate and file a complaint with the local police dept.? Sure they're unlikely to do something over one complaint, but if a trend emerges they'll take notice.
Me, I'd rather have to face a human witness (you) in court than a camera.
i've never seen so much "won't somebody think of the children" BS on slashdot.... the sentiment here so far seems to be "well i don't speed (liars), so i don't mind the cameras", which is silly, i don't sell crack or run a basement casino but i still appreciate and recognize the importance of 4th amendment protections even though, were the police to kick down my door, they would find nothing amiss. its been mentioned quite a few times already but look at Britain with its mass of CCTV cameras and speed cameras, i don't see how ANYONE can look at that system and think, yes, lets bring that to America! There are times when we need to choose between preservation of personal liberties and nanny state garbage, even if the nanny state garbage could save a few lives in the long run... just in the same way i'm happily willing to face an "increased risk of a terrorist act" if we scuttled the decidedly un-american and hypocritically named Patriot Act in its entirety...
Amen. The problem is that cowards never face their own cowardice and admit that it is a driving force behind their actions, decisions, and the sort of government under which they'd like to live. Instead, they have a million excuses and justifications. Some of them even sound pretty good, at least until you evaluate them critically. That's why no amount of freedom is worth an "increased risk" of anything to them, not when some politician promises to protect them from it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
so if we can just ignore laws we don't like, why not just pass a law that says everything done anywhere is illegal and then we can just have the police enforce it when ever they see fit.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
WTF? The stats you provide show the exact opposite of what you claim. Construction deaths in a workzone is akin to being struck by lightning. Literally. Murder accounts for some 306 times as many deaths. Driving account for some 670 times as many deaths.
844 deaths in a 7 year period. 120.5 deaths a year.
No more than half of those are caused by cars. 60.25
At most, likely less due to mobile equipment, 61 people a year die in work zones from cars. Nationwide.
That's one person a state per year. That's no where near dangerous. Here are some comparison numbers. http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
Deaths per year:
Car Accidents ~40,000
Murder: 18,573
Hurricane 116
Heat 114
Flood 64
Worker struck by Car in Workzone 61
Lightning 59
Tornado 56
Going grocery shopping is more dangerous than construction in a work zone.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I've yet to find a speed limit that isn't sensible for the area. There's no way in hell that going 40 on a 30 makes sense (although that's not where you're likely to find the cameras). 60 Mph is the standard "single carriageway" speed in the UK, but some parts are 50. Every time I've seen a 50 zone in the middle of a long stretch of 60 then it made sense because there was some awkward get-out or the very edge of a village or something.
In thirty years of driving through school zones in my city I haven't seen one kid use them. They're all bused or driven in, judging by the traffic crunch before and after school. All school zones do is piss off drivers who don't have kids just trying to get to work/whatever. These are four and six lane roadways that have to slow down to 20 mph from a normal 50 mph, talk about wasted gas and brake material. Never mind the rest of us paid for the cost of expanding the road and putting in the school zones. I know, lets make the parents pay for the zones and every other child protection piece of shit they want and let them face the anger of the working public. How about putting the schools away from the main streets instead of right next door. And remove the bastard who dreamed school zones up.
By the way, any parent neglectful enough to let kids play near heavily used roadways deserves to lose them. Call it "passive eugenics". -- George Carlin.
don't get it.
It is partially because people react to speed cameras differently and it completely screws up the flow of traffic. I live in Phoenix and was on the 51 yesterday where the speed limit is 55 and there are speed cameras. Everyone was going ~65 and as soon as we approached the cameras everyone slows down to 55.Everyone with the exception of one stupid woman in a Mustang who kept going until she saw the speed cameras and then slowed down to fucking 45 MPH until she passed the cameras and then sped back up to ~65. She almost caused numerous accidents
Anyone who lives in AZ and regularly drives on roads with speed cameras can tell you that experiences like that are par for the course. Speed cameras really mess with the flow of traffic and in my opinion make the road more dangerous. Much like how red light cameras have been shown to increase the incidence of rear end collisions in intersections that they are placed at.
Anyone
What part of completing chores and commutes necessitates speeding?
When the speed limits make sense then maybe it will be worth legislating them, hasn't happened yet.
There are other documents in the report that go on to discuss photo enforcement efforts in Arizona, but they're not quite as relevant.
Firstly, construction zones and pedestrian areas are not the same thing.
Secondly, as I understand it the speed limit in construction zones is 45mph. That's going to give a fatality rate (based on the abstract) of somewhere between 95% and 100%. The difference between that and having the speed limit still at 65 (or whatever - >50mph) is basically nothing - it's still just going to be a matter of dumb luck whether or not the person survives being hit.
You obviously know a better set of people than those who drive near me. Speeding through residential roads and whizzing around corners or overtaking above the speedlimit just because you couldn't make it if you didn't is common in the UK from what I've seen. We're not talking big long roads, we're talking narrow, single-lane roads a lot of the time, or residential roads where the path is right up against the road and there are cars parked to the kerb.
Even speeding on the motorway, which is as close as we get to "lots of lanes and big long stretches" doesn't work because a) you've always got one idiot who pulls out without indicating, causing someone to break and b) the junctions are comparatively close together, so you've always got people having to move lanes. Watching someone idiot fly down the outside lane at 90+ and then have a car pull out in front of them going at ~75 while overtaking something doing 65 is not something I want to be close to as often as I have been (the motorway speed limit is 70).
As much as I distrust government, it does sometimes perform necessary and useful functions, and sometimes even accomplishes those. Speed limits are largely necessary, and usually appropriate.
It is pretty typical in the Los Angeles area for "road construction areas" to be marked to include much larger areas than needed, as well as left marked during long periods with no actual work or personnel present. Coupled with the "all traffic fines are doubled in a marked construction area", this generates significant revenue.
But then I am probably just sulking over my last speeding ticket 23 years ago.
Maybe you just don't have children in school or something, but as a parent that's one of the stupidest things I've heard. I want passing motorists keeping their eyes on the road and looking for children who may venture out into the roadway. The absolute last thing I want is for drivers to keep their eyes glued to their speedometers in some stupid attempt to go exactly the speed limit to avoid an automatic ticket, while completely ignoring the fact that their are children crossing the street in front of them!
dom
I question the "usually appropriate" bit. As a former truck driver, I've witnessed and read, many many many times, the problems with a "split speed limit". That's where automobiles are allowed to run 65 to 75 mph, while trucks are limited to 55. Entirely inappropriate. The goal is not safety, but revenue.
No one with even an introduction to highway engineering courses could EVER advocate of justify split speed limits.
The state of Arizona, several years ago, was considering using a split speed limit, especially near Phoenix. They had the University of Arizona to do a study, and the university sent them an unequivocal answer: "Don't do it, it will cost LIVES!!"
Meanwhile, states like Ohio, Illinois, and California continue to kill people with idiotic speed limit laws.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
That's actually where our societies are going.
In NY, there are areas where highways have 50mph speed limits... or even 45mph... despite a wide, straight (or nearly so) well-paved road.
NYC has a statutory 50mph maximum speed limit on expressways and parkways. It makes no sense on Staten Island, but thats the law. NY State in general is a mess with speed limits. Any changes are done on a per road basis legislatively... which as you know takes forever to do. Most states have a statutory maximum speed for various types of roadways and traffic studies determine what the speed limits should be set to on various sections of a highway.
Then maybe they should have murdered them all. Laws definitely will change when facing a violent uprising.
Yes, because speed cameras are worth reaching for the ammo box.....
Fucking idiot. I love the 2nd amendment as much as the next guy but you don't reach for the gun over a goddamn speeding ticket. Here's an idea, how about the good citizens of AZ vote the morons out of office who passed the bill to install these things?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Well, what can I say, I think you are driving like a jerk. You decline to share the road, and I think that's jerkish behavior. Obviously, many people think that anyone who goes above the limit are jerks, too; and reasonable people can disagree. It is my opinion that not only are you driving like a jerk, but also causing unsafe conditions. I wish you would reconsider your rude driving habits and drive in the lane appropriate to your speed.
For the record, I'm an American, and on highways I find my preferred driving speed is about 65-70. On some roads, despite a 65 MPH limit, this puts me at the very bottom of the speed of traffic, and I have no problem driving in the slow lane. Sometimes, less often, it puts me at the top of the speed of traffic and I use left lanes. I don't try to justify forcing other people to drive my speed -- those other drivers doing 80 are almost always driving perfectly safely, and I do not beef them for getting where they are going at their own speed.
Good luck. Really, consider driving in the slow lane. The slow lane can be very nice and relaxing.
"I've seen some good systems which focus on indicating to drivers when they're going too fast."
It's called a speedometer. Part of earning a license to operate a motor vehicle on state roads involves training on its proper use, and acknowledging you're supposed to look at it from time to time to obey the posted limit
Driving, let alone speeding, is not a right. If drivers need "gentle little reminders" that "maybe they should slow down," they have no business behind the wheel of that much metal moving that fast.
Nothing like a Slashdot posting involving traffic regulations to find a bunch of self-entitled +5 posts talking about how they're safe drivers and such regulations shouldn't apply to them, because obviously it's some vast government conspiracy by governments to impose regulations on the roads they built. How many of the people here complaining about speed limits actually bothered trying to contact their legislators or other elected representatives? Or is it just about having a sense of justification to do whatever you want?
It's not the economy, it's not the environment, it's the fact that I don't have to put up with all the other self-entitled asshats on the roads that is compelling me to use public transportation more. Speed limits, turn signals, right-of-way... all that crap is for other drivers, right?
Speed limits are largely necessary, and usually appropriate. Your opinion on this is off in some corner, sulking over your last ticket.
Speed limits are necessary, but that doesn't mean certain locales don't artificially lower them to raise revenue. Most traffic engineering studies I've read suggest that speed limits should be set for the 85th percentile, but they rarely are.
My hometown has a stretch of highway that's posted 55mph. Pretty much everybody drives 65mph on it though. If you go 55mph at rush hour you'll get tailgated and have people swerving on either side of you trying to get past. It's actually dangerous to obey the speed limit in this instance and the roadway was designed for 75mph (as all interstates were), so why is it posted 55mph?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You ask that question rhetorically, as if it doesn't have an obvious answer.
The part is the part where we live in a universe governed by time. You might not have noticed, but humans have limited resources but unlimited desires -- it's a basic tenet of economic theory. One of the limited resources is time.
Sure, I could walk to the store 10 miles away, and spend a 9 hour day completing only my grocery shopping. I can improve that by riding a bike; I can improve that by driving a car; and the faster I drive, the more improvement I can make.
(Sheesh, as I'm typing this I'm wondering for what kind of person it isn't obvious?)
Obviously, the limiting factor is safety: although it is more convenient to travel at 99 MPH than 98 MPH, it is less convenient to have an accident than not. So, we try to find a sweet spot -- and in America, where I live, our speed limits do not correspond to that sweet spot.
Get yourself a bazooka and give those lazy DOT assholes something to fix. It worked for Michael Douglas.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over.
That might be valid out on the rural interstate but in many urban areas the right most lanes are better used for merging/exiting. If you cruise in them you'll constantly be cut off by people entering or exiting the highway. Ever driven the Baltimore or DC beltways? Try cruising on them in the right lanes. It's not fun.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
85th percentile. Do you have any idea how long it has been since I've seen or heard another person use the term? On the rare occasion that I use it, people get this vacuous look on their faces. "What the HELL is he talking about!?!?!"
Thank you, Sir.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Nobody slams on their brakes? Yeah right. People around here don't know how to drive, or they probably just can't read English. If some kids are dumb, take them out of the gene pool.
You sound to me like a douche who shouldn't be allowed to drive. I KNOW that there are signs in Arizona that state that the left lane is for passing only. It doesn't matter whether you've seen them - maybe you should pay more attention. It doesn't even matter if those signs are posted on the specific stretches of highway that you drive on. You OBVIOUSLY know that it's the law, and the right way to drive.
If coping with traffic is to much for you, then quit driving. Get an apartment within walking distance of your job. Or, biking distance.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE LEFT LANE UNLESS YOU ARE PASSING!!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So your answer is that there's no need to improve the current ineffective systems because you like being a smug fucker?
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site.
I find it hard to believe that between 1995 and 2002, there were 844 people actually working at a road construction site.
The beltways are pretty special. As many as 8 lanes going in one direction. No, no one expects you to cruise in the rightmost lane. Cruising should be in the second and third right most lane, and the speed should increase as you move left. It doesn't change the rule stated by GP.
As for smaller city and urban highways (less than 4 lanes each way) the rules don't change either. Merging and slower traffic on the right, faster traffic on the left. If everyone did this, the traffic jams called "commutes" would be less severe, and wouldn't last as long. Every idiot who violates this most basic of rules adds a couple seconds to the endless traffic jams. Doesn't matter if it's D.C., L.A., Chicago, Houston, or wherever.
Everyone wants to think that his situation is special, and that he needs to change to rules to meet his needs, but everyone is an idiot too.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Actually, Ohio recently (within the last year) changed the law and now speed limits on interstates are 65 for all vehicles. I find it to be much nicer on the highway. However, I wonder why they didn't bump it to 70 to match pretty much all of the surrounding states.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
I don't see how that's much different than a sign saying "Photo Enforcement Zone 1/4 mile". It's saying, "Hey, idiot, you have a 1/4mi to slow down or you're getting a ticket!"
Or did you not know that? I was actually in Phoenix (I drove there from CA) less than a month ago so I know first hand what this system looks like.
I think you'd have to be a colossal idiot (or so unaware that you deserve a ticket anyway) to get a ticket from one of these systems, and I did notice that it slowed traffic down on the whole.
Does it seem like kind of a waste of money? Yeah, I'm sure it cost a TON of money that could've gone to more useful things (like refurbishing their public library with some current technology), but as far as your argument I fail to see a significant distinction.
The flaw with your argument is that there is a much smaller pool of road construction workers to draw from than from the general population, which all of your other statistics represent. I don't know how many road construction workers there are, but I can guarantee it's significantly smaller than 300 million. If we make the assumption that there are 1 million road construction workers, which seems overly generous, the likelyhood of being struck by a car and dying while doing road construction work is roughly equivalent to the likelyhood of being murdered.
A quick look at the bureau of labor statistics here suggests that in 2008, in the US, there were approximately 83,000 road, bridge, and highway construction workers. Extrapolated to a risk for the general US population, you would expect to lose about 220,000 people to being struck by a car in a workzone, about 5.5 times as likely as dying in a car accident in general, and an order of magnitude more likely than being murdered.
Such an attitude can only come from an individualistic opinion on the way the use the roads. Roads are designed to be used by more than one person at a time, and even where there is noone else present, to speed deliberately in excess over the limit is to indicate a greater importance on one's own priorities rather than those of society at large.
Note that I don't mean situations where someone travels at 105 km/h in a 100 km/h zone for 15 s. I mean 175 km/h in a 100 km/h zone continuously, at night in a rural unlit area.
being watched 24/7 in public is not the US that people want to live in. There are better ways to fix public safety issues without draconian methods that are actually thinly disguised money making scams.
Exactly, the speed camera is just a machine, there are no fairies inside it (unless you live somewhere that Terry Pratchett invented). It will just trigger if somebody goes faster than the speed set by the service engineers on order from the local or national government.
So I don't understand why people are unhappy with cameras sometimes. As you rightly say, the issue is about the decision on what the speed limit law should be, not whether or not it should be enforced. I think quite a few people against speed cameras confuse these two issues. They actually have an issue with the speed limit that has been set rather than the concept of enforcing law.
Yes. We've already made them. Just about any car (not SUV or van) sold in America made by any company other than Hyundai, Kia, GM, or Chrysler (and some from those four). And most Interstate highways.
Some of the drivers are unsafe at any speed, but that's another story.
Of course, my idea of what an acceptable level of safety is differs from those of the NHTSA and of insurance companies. I'm willing to take on extra risk to drive faster, and I'm willing to take on extra risk to spend less time driving. And judging from their behavior, most of those around me are as well.
Though, complicating matters, risk versus speed is a roughly U-shaped curve... only the center of the U is NOT at the speed limit, nor even at the median speed; it's higher than the median speed. And furthermore, the sides of the U are sloped, and they are steeper on the DOWN side; it's riskier to drive 10mph below the safest speed than 10mph above.
It might be true that if you could move the entire curve to lower speeds, safety would improve. But essentially, you can't; people won't voluntarily slow down and draconian measures like speed cameras change the shape of the curve.
unless you mess with the posted speed and set it lower where the camera is at intentionally to make the camera more profitable. See the problem? When the camera can make money it will only be about the money.
"They're all bused or driven in"
Citation please. That they would "all" be bused or driven in seems unlikely, as I haven't seen this in any major city I've lived in or visited. I imagine this is possible in certain circumstances, but this sounds like something that's being made up in order to support a rant.
Never mind the rest of us paid for the cost of expanding the road and putting in the school zones. I know, lets make the parents pay for the zones and every other child protection piece of shit they want and let them face the anger of the working public. How about putting the schools away from the main streets instead of right next door. And remove the bastard who dreamed school zones up.
A few thoughts:
1. It sounds as if you don't like paying for things you don't use. If I felt that way, I think I wouldn't have health insurance, and would simply save money in case I had to pay for medical expenses. Should I conclude that you don't have health insurance, since surely you wouldn't expect to benefit from other people's money?
2. How do you normally handle changes in speed limit? Do you go 70 mph until you have to slam on the brakes because you arrive at a 55mph sign?
3. Most of the "working public" who pay for those things to protect children actually do have children they want to protect.
4. Also consider that when many schools were built, the large roads near them were not there yet.
And then where I live, they put speed cameras that are active 24/7 in construction zones. So up to 75% of the time the cameras are running there aren't even construction workers present, and there's no notification that a speed camera is ahead, and yet I'm supposed to believe the primary purpose is to slow down traffic in order to reduce injury. Hardly.
If traffic cameras weren't used so often for money grabs, perhaps people would actually be more in favour of them being used to improve safety.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
I submit that the main problem was reckless driving, for ignoring/not seeing the school zone warning lights, weaving in and out of traffic, running a yellow light and going faster than the speed of traffic. Yes, they were speeding too but bad driving is the main culprit and that can happen at any speed.
While a speed camera specific to a school zone may be a good idea, most of the cameras in Arizona are not used for that. Instead, they are put out at random points along the freeways. I have a problem with the fact that they ignore all the other more serious problems, like distracted driving (texting, using cell phones, putting on makeup, eating, etc...), driving slower than traffic while in the outer lanes, weaving, driving to fast for conditions, not signaling lane changes and so on. Those are what lead to accidents. Getting cops of the road in favor of cameras will only make it worse. Further, they create another kind of reckless driver, one who speeds while he can and slams on his breaks at the first sign of a camera.
the real reason they're dropping it is because everyone simply remembers where all the built-in cameras are; you just have to drop your speed to an indicated 76mph just before the cameras. (the speed limit is 65, the cameras only fire at 11mph over or more, and speedometers always read higher than you are really going).
and when they park a mobile camera ford escape, they put out a sign, saying "photo speed enforcement ahead", so you just have to pay attention for the signs, which if you're speeding, you better be paying attention anyway!
the cameras all made a bunch of money at first, then income dropped off a cliff after everyone learned the system.
and the decision to drop it is a setback for those who argue that the cameras slow speeders, reduce accidents, and free up police for more serious matters.
You do realize simply murdering every last person that is not a police officer, would ALSO stop speeders, reduce accidents (and all crime in general), and free up the police for more serious matters.
Just because my examples form of wrong is way way worse than Arizonas form of wrong is not an excuse.
Which, thanks to selective enforcement, let Mrs. Grundy complain about "that loud party" (a small gathering of about 5 people) next door at 9pm and get the cops over to intervene, but leave poor old deaf Mrs. Grundy free to blast her TV at midnight.
Totally unnecessary. Seeing even the ugliest person uncovered isn't going to hurt you.
Ahh, the "no way home from the bar" laws. If you drive, you're DWI, if you walk or take transit you're publicly intoxicated.
Your first one in particular is a law that practically encourages jackassery.
Your post and citation shows that *driving* through a construction zone is risky to the workers. Nothing in there shows that *speeding* is, or rather, is any MORE risky than not. And it also says nothing of the added or diminished risk to the workers OR the drivers when there is wide variation in speeds. Would the workers be in more danger if EVERYONE was speeding at roughly the same rate over some going fast and some not? I honestly don't know.
I'm playing devil's advocate here; I'm one of the old assholes that slows down in a construction zone, generally going the posted limits while trying not to cause a huge speed variation condition. But your well intentioned and researched post here doesn't really address the issue to which you're responding.
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
No, blowing the light is the fastest way to get through. Abusing traffic lights to enforce speed limits is a great way to get people to treat traffic lights with the same contempt they treat speed limits.
(Well, except in Philadelphia where they already DO)
"Speed limits are necessary, but that doesn't mean certain locales don't artificially lower them to raise revenue."
Driver behavior being what it is, cameras, speed traps, and enhanced enforcement do that just fine. You don't need to lower limits, just enforce them, and the money rolls in.
"Most traffic engineering studies I've read suggest that speed limits should be set for the 85th percentile, but they rarely are."
When I was interested more than I am now in traffic engineering, limits were generally set by design of the roadway and expected traffic. As traffic increased, limits decreased. Then came the Oil Crisis, and now we set limits to try to save fuel. How's this working out?
"My hometown has a stretch of highway that's posted 55mph. Pretty much everybody drives 65mph on it though. If you go 55mph at rush hour you'll get tailgated and have people swerving on either side of you trying to get past. It's actually dangerous to obey the speed limit in this instance and the roadway was designed for 75mph (as all interstates were), so why is it posted 55mph?"
Wrong question. Why are people driving dangerously? ps- 'All' Interstates weren't designed for 75mph, and congested ones no longer function that way. 65MPH on urban sections of I-95 is a cruel joke. Like the stretch in Hartford, or of course the eight-lane death strip.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Running red lights seems to be a bit of a pass time here in Phoenix. It's worse than other places I've lived. So, there was a serious problem here before the red light cameras were installed.
In most (all?) cases though, there are also warning signs out about the cameras. The speed cameras usually have two signs out each stating the distance to the camera. If you're at all paying attention, you shouldn't get caught by them.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
Which, thanks to selective enforcement, let Mrs. Grundy complain about "that loud party" (a small gathering of about 5 people) next door at 9pm and get the cops over to intervene, but leave poor old deaf Mrs. Grundy free to blast her TV at midnight.
Selective enforcement is part of the design as well, and speaks towards the parent topic. If the constituency wanted the laws to be different, they'd like vote people into power who passed those kinds of laws.
Totally unnecessary. Seeing even the ugliest person uncovered isn't going to hurt you.
I could conceivably have sex with you without demonstrably harming you either. Doesn't mean that I am allowed to do so without your consent. Society is complex, democracy even more so.
Ahh, the "no way home from the bar" laws. If you drive, you're DWI, if you walk or take transit you're publicly intoxicated.
Or, perhaps, one could go to the bar and not leave intoxicated. This would require understanding how much alcohol they can safely consume, but is entirely attainable.
Your first one in particular is a law that practically encourages jackassery.
Being deaf probably isn't being a jackass. Having a party may or may not be, and the police are the agents that are tasked with determining that based on the laws on the books.
Society... pros and cons.
"If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it then yeah, they're not going to improve things."
In 1999 I paid nearly a thousand dollars in photo radar tickets. I had a 1998 Miata at the time, so, well... It wasn't about being dumb. I accepted the tickets as the price I had to pay to drive how I wanted to drive. I had an accident in 1986 when I was 16 (no injuries, low impact). Since then I've been accident-free, and back in the late '90's I actually did amateur racing.
I never sped through residential areas, school zones, or construction sites. The places I got ticketed at were in wide-open areas with lots of visibility and low traffic - exactly the kinds of places where you would put radar if you just wanted cash and didn't give a flying fuck about preventing accidents. It's not about safety, at least not in my city.
For some people it's a tax, not a lesson to be learned.
Actually, while I agree with the majority of your post, I CAN think of one more place where speed limits are very useful, with the caveat that they're not useful all the time: I live in Denver, Colorado. We by far don't have the worst weather, I know, but our weather is variable enough, and can get bad enough, that road travel is seriously inhibited. Yet, if you must drive during these times, you'll find other people out on the highway doing 60 in the middle of a blizzard with a foot of snow on the road. I think that speed limits would be very useful on those roads DURING those times. They already have digital speed limit signs set up in places around Denver... what's to stop them from networking them and then slowing those limits for bad weather? Variable speed limits based on real time road information would be infinitely more helpful and safer than the set speed limits we have now, and I can't help feeling that if the speed limits were REALLY about safety, we'd be hearing more about ideas like this.
There are five boxes to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order.
Ballot Box is two steps before Ammunition Box.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
During the 1995 to 2002 period, 844 workers were killed while working at a road construction site. During this same period there were 9325 deaths in the construction industry. The 844 worker deaths in road construction represent 9% of all deaths in construction.
I agree that speeding in work zones is a problem, but I'm still going to play devil's advocate here. Road construction fatalities account for 9% of construction fatalities, but what percentage of the construction industry is road-based? If it's 30%, then I'd say we're doing pretty well.
As to the argument that half of those deaths are caused by being struck by vehicles, well that's the main hazard that comes with road construction, which doesn't suffer from confined space hazards, has a pretty low toppling equipment hazard, and a very low hammer-dropped-on-your-head-from-43-stories hazard. Yes, convincing people to be careful and slow down in work zones will prevent some of that 9% fatality rate, but convincing workers to understand the concepts of center-of-gravity, confined spaces, and hard-hats will prevent some of that other 91%. I see no reason to focus so heavily on that 5% caused by vehicles in road construction.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
The speed limits plastered along my 30 mile "expressway" commute range from 50 mph to 40 to 35 mph for "road construction" that is.. um... never taking place.
Do accidents happen? They do. Does it make sense to install speeding cameras throughout and create a never ending traffic jam? Probably not. Let's just say a lot of economic activity will cease to exist, because driving to work/restaurants/malls(/visiting parents) will become unfeasible.
I live in Arizona and have learned to spot the speed cameras, long before I get up close to them. With very little extra effort, while scanning the traffic ahead, I always notice the speed cameras. I then slow down slightly before getting close to them. However, I do not drive significantly over the speed limit anyway.
There are are two main types of speed cameras that I see in Arizona. One is the permanent setup, the other is the white SUV with hardware mounted on a bar several feet above the roof. In some cases (but not always) the camera is preceded by a sign which says "photo enforcement zone ahead." A couple of cities in Arizona also use an unmarked vehicle, which is usually parked out in the middle of nowhere with no one around, in a way that is not typical of where anyone else would park.
I am not someone who tailgates, so I do not need to stay as focused the car just ahead of me. Because of that, I have always tended to scan what is happening at least a few cars or more further down the road. That allows me to predict what the traffic will do ahead of time and also means that I tend to see the photo radar before they see me. It also helps that, in my pickup-truck, I sit up slightly higher than much of the other traffic.
Of course when my view ahead is blocked by one or more large semi-trailers, there is a slight chance of failing to see the photo radar ahead of time. On the routes I have taken across Arizona this last year or two, most of the photo radar has usually been in or near the Phoenix area.
I have sometimes wondered how close I need to get to the photo radar before they start checking my speed. I have also wondered if having several vehicles still between me and the photo radar, affects their being able to check my speed or not.
In the last 40 years of driving I have never had a speeding ticket or an accident.
CHeck with your local DMV and police - there's a reason that insurance is expensive for road construction workers.
You make a good point, but be careful not to equate "right lane" with "right-most lane". If you are on a six-lane highway, and driving the limit, then you are probably driving faster than the people entering and exiting -- right? If so, then you belong at least one lane to the left, maybe more; if not, if you really are driving the same speed as incoming and outgoing traffic, then sorry, yes, you belong in that right-most lane with those cars.
The lane-to-speed theory is very simple. Just look to your right. Is that car traveling slower than you? If not, move to the right, and repeat.
Every speed camera I've seen in use was causing drivers cresting a hill to suddenly slam on their brakes as soon as they saw the camera. This does NOT seem like something that would result in a net increase in driving safety! (Not everybody sees the camera at the same time. Some of them are too busy chatting on their cell phones to notice cameras, speed limit signs, or the car directly in front of them slamming on it's brakes.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Well, I can tell you that I would rather be hit by a car going 45 than 75.
Yes, but consider what is actually the case here: You are going 45 (because you care about the speed limit) and they are going 75 (because they don't care). You get hit at relativistically 75 - 45 = 30 mph. If however, the speed limit remained at 60, you are going 60, and they are going 75. You get hit at 75 - 60 = 15 mph. Okay, now which of these scenarios would you prefer? Please note that I am writing this as a native Arizonan. I am mostly against speed cameras because they don't get speeders to slow down ALL the time, they just get them to slam on their brakes when they see the camera, and this, I believe, causes more accidents than having everyone just speed a little. Please note before you add a [citation needed] to this that I am not stating this as fact; it is purely anecdotal.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
You can't "fix" the photo tickets. The politicians found out they were not above the law so they remedied the situation.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Joanna Peters, a Phoenix traffic-safety activist, called the Brewer administration's decision irresponsible. "They're ignoring a silent majority of folks who actually support the program," Peters said. "This is something we could fix, not just throw out the baby."
I've noticed that the vocal minority loves to refer to themselves as the silent majority in many situations.
Oh, and one more thing. I said "You get hit at 75 - 60 = 15 mph" but realistically, if you are going 60 and they are going 75, they are much more likely to have time to swerve/slow down to NOT hit you than if you were going 45.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
I was trying to go for a theme of effectiveness rather than revenue generation.
I'm not all that attached to that system though it seems to work quite well.
I'm sure there are more optimal systems than what I described.
Come to the states where some towns and counties will drop the speed limit just to hit commuters and get revenue.
The Reservation I'm from does that during the holidays, its on a main east/west highway in South Dakota and they hit out of county or state cars. Its 40 odd miles to the next town of size to the west and 70 miles to the east, so the Tribal Police lay in wait, hit out of county cars and ticket them.
Of course they don't tell you the tickets can't be enforced off reservation and it won't go on your record, they just press the drivers to pay right there and warn them about collection fees.
And how is getting a fine 2 weeks later going to help prevent this situation? It would be far more appropriate to have school zones more heavily patrolled by police cruisers, it would also have the side effect of keeping officers in at least one of the locations where they are needed the most, instead of out in the boonies where their only purpose is to rack up fines. Sure they wouldn't catch all of them, but it would be a far more effective deterrent.
I'm against cameras as well, same as marked police cars sitting on the median. All it does is make people slam on their brakes who were going the speed limit anyway, so now everybody is going 15 under all because of that one police car.
I'm curious why you assume I'm going to ask for citations. I'm not talking about a car going 75 hitting my car going 45. I'm talking about a roadside worker or pedestrian getting hit by a car going 45. When I mentioned the ability to maneuver, I was talking about the person in the car. I doubt my reaction time would be fast enough to dodge a car going 45 or 75.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Crossing guards at school zones provide more safety than issuing a camera-ticket after the fact, AND are cheaper than installing and maintaining cameras.
Hey said "probably not." That is a speculation/opinion not a fact. No citation necessary.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
This means you, entire fucking state of Ohio! I'm tired of your jackass drivers on our Pennsylvania roads! If you aren't passing, get back in the right fucking lane! It's the law, asses!
Will drivers incapable of being safe on the road pay for major roadworks plus new ridiculously safe and ridiculously overpiced cars for those who drive responsibly? (but might still be hit by somebody else) Heck, will they finance such cars for everybody? (since safer roads will consume even more space in the cities than they already do; not only being a pedestrian would not fit in your "safe at any speed" fantasy...there would be no real way to move around on foot or bike)
(and yeah, who will raise a hand as an unsafe driver?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Dude, wow, even though I disagree with you I certainly don't agree with whoever modded you Troll. How is that a troll?
The argument is that as long as the incentive exists to trick the lights, someone will be doing it. Which do you think politicians (let alone the voting public) care about more, making the city budget line up, or 1s different on a light that in most cases no one will ever test? Saying "we'll just fix the lights" ignores the realities of the situation - if we could work things that way, they probably wouldn't have been broken to begin with.
The problem is not and has never been that politicians are inherently bad horrible people - it is that they have strong incentives to be bad horrible people, and by giving them more powers we increase the incentives in that direction.
I don't know NY, but there are plenty of bits of England (or do you mean NYC, in which case I'll pick any large British city) where wide, straight, well-paved roads have 40mph-50mph limits. Generally it's because there are lots of junctions, or people walking alongside the road, or heavy traffic.
The M25 (the 117-mile 4+4 lane motorway around London) sometimes has 50mph limits (the limit changes, depending on congestion -- when it's busy lowering the limit increases traffic flow).
This is because there are too many idiots in this world that don't understand the concept of speeding when you have the room to do so.
If you go over the limit in a traffic congestion period of time (AKA: "Rush hour". not the jackie chan movie, please.) you're bound to wind up amassing behind the heart of the congestion, and perpetuating it's dead stop for the next car behind you (at this point, most likely another imbecile speeding in futility.).
So it was brilliant for the UK to develop speed limits based on hours of the day. It inadvertently gets the law abiding simpletons to give more time to the congestion ahead to dissolve. Because lets face it, you can't expect enough people with common sense to go BELOW THE LIMIT appropriately to traffic conditions.
...act on a ban... and a little side info for you out of staters...
"Lawmakers considered repeal proposals within months, but set the issue aside and appealed for calmer debate when a passing motorist fatally shot a camera-van operator doing paperwork in his marked vehicle in April 2009.""
This is NOT why the lawmakers didn't move forward with repealing the plan. It was about money and lobbying - period.
Background - I'm from Arizona, and I've been helping collect signatures for camerafraud.com and their petition drive to ban ALL photo enforcement in Arizona. I've been following this issue VERY closely, and I've been in touch with multiple legislators - my rep in person multiple times - and here's the short, short version of the real story behind the state legislature's failure to do anything.
Arizona State Rep. Sam Crump, who adamantly opposes the cameras, authored a House bill to ban the state highway speed cameras. (While other legislative efforts were attempted with amendments to other non-related bills, his was the most prominent and likely to succeed.) It passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee (which Sam sat on) on party lines. (Democrats universally opposed removing them. I'm not 100% sure why Dems were united... One said, "It's scary to drive on the roads." Another from the T&I committee said, "I'm an ER doctor," and went on to describe the "carnage" from accidents. And so on... But in the end, I think all the Democrats did it for political reasons - because the system was Janet Napalitano's brain child (along with Jay Heiler and other Redflex lobbyists pushing her for it), and they don't dare step on her powerful Democrat toes.)
After his bill passed the T&I and Rules committees, it suddenly stopped moving. I asked Sam why, and he assured me that he'd been promised it'd get a whole House floor vote.
At about this time, the driver was shot and killed in the van, and politics did get involved somewhat, but both sides claimed that the shooting supported their views. "The man wouldn't have been shot if he wasn't there in the first place with a speed camera," vs., "You see? Our society is falling apart. We NEED this kind of surveillance to discourage criminal activity," etc.
(Ironically enough, it was human witnesses that followed the shooter after the crime and gave detailed accounts that led to Destories's arrest - NOT all of the 24/7 video being shot by the camera van or any of the other $200,000+ worth of Big Brother-like technology deployed there in the van... Just like the NYC Times Square bomb was thwarted by people just paying attention... but that's another discussion for another time).
Meanwhile, the cameras were taking hundreds of thousands of pictures. Some were in high speed areas, but the more nefarious cameras were located right at 65 to 55 speed limit change locations (on the 51). Many people who didn't mind the cameras and generally drove safely were suddenly getting $181.50 tickets in the mail, and they were FURIOUS. This anger, combined with a New Times article that let the cat out of the bag about how you could just throw the tickets in the garbage, led to a general revolt against the cameras. As of today, only about 30% of all of the "criminals" were actually paid their photo tickets (the majority just threw the non-legally-binding "Notices of Violation" in the garbage, and forced process servers to chase them down - with only limited success. Many people were challenging the tickets in the state courts, which ultimately were being flooded to the point that you couldn't get a court date for several months for any issues.
Back at the capital, the state's budget crisis was growing by the day. Billions in annual shortfalls were becoming a reality, and the cameras WERE making some money from the people who actually just paid up. The top GOP man in the House - Speaker Kirk Adams - saw the political problems brewing. They couldn't cut the camera revenue and "let speeders off the hook" while they were cuttin
This is somewhat ignorant. For example, I speed on the highways or in curvy country areas (the former being to make time and the latter being for fun). I have never and will never speed in an area where I can cause harm to a person or their possessions (other than pure land). There's a HUGE difference between putting only oneself at risk, and putting other people at risk. And before anyone brings it up, there's not much of a difference between a wolfpack doing 50 or 80 on the highway -- they're both life threatening if an accident occurs.
Yes, because speed cameras are worth reaching for the ammo box.....
Well, not the people. The cameras on the other hand?
Never received one, but I'm a very vocal opponent of automated policing and revenue generation through fines.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
That's all fine and dandy, so long as EVERYONE actually obeys the limit. The point the GP was making is that given the reality that not everyone obeys the limit, it *might* be possible that it is actually safer to leave the speed limit as it is, rather than reducing it. I'm not advocating 75mph construction zones, but they have a good point.
The slow lane on that road is where people enter and exit. More dangerous than the right lane.
For the record, I've learned that 'your preferred speed' is often just a little faster than the prevailing average... Not yours personally, but time and again, when I travelled in the left lane at 70, 'everyone' seemed to want to go 72.
I know full well the impact of hanging in the left lane at the speed limit, and having people swerve by. Trust me, I am not alone in hanging in the left lane at the limit, and the speeders will do it no matter what lane you are in. I've talked with the police officers I know quite a bit (when we aren't talking about ileegal immigrants, gangbangers, or drunks killing motorcycle officers) and they are of two minds about this - one, get out of the way and try to avoid the accidents, or two, the speeders will be swerving anyways, there is nothing you can do but drive alertly and keep your brakes and steering gear in good order. Speeders even swerve past marked patrol cars.
I'm not forcing anyone to drive a certain speed. I'm part of the pack.
And driving 80 through traffic doing 65 is not as safe as driving 65 with the traffic doing 65. 'Perfectly safely' is not the term I would use. 'competent driving' might fit. I've driven the Autobahn in the 70s, and those rules would do us a lot of good. But those aren't the rules.
I have no sympathy for speeders. And I am under no illusion that my bvehavior will change a thing. Your perspective is different, and I submit, respectfully, that it is because you have a different intention. I understand, but driving too fast for conditions is not a good thing. If the conditions are just traffic congestion, forcing yourself through heavy traffic isn't safe at any speed.
Oh, and I learned that on my commute, going 75 when I could got me there 5 minutes faster in most cases. Not worth it to me any more. I see speeders cut me off just to get off at the next exit a half-mile up the road. They got a 15 second advantage? Not even that. Be honest, it's not about time. It's about getting your way.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I say, get the pedestrians off the freeway!!! (This is where the majority of the speed camera vans are)
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
70 in states surrounding Ohio? Which ones? Some stretches of I-10 in Arizona are marked 75, and the I-17 I think has some stretches also, but most of what I saw driving cross-country in 2005 was 65. Certainly on the east coast, but you know how they are...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I don't have a problem with them...outside of Maricopa County. In Maricopa, they put the cameras right BEFORE the nearest speed limit signs. It's like *FLASH* "SURPRISE FAGGOT!" In other counties, there's no excuse. They are set up not as traps, but to catch only those speeders with the most flagrant disregard for the speed limit, and usually others safety. (You almost never see them outside active construction zones in Pima county, for example.)
I have a burning hatred for the entire Phoenix metropolitan area, this is just the icing on the goddamn cake.
We love you, Steve!!!
The problem with that is that the ballot that goes in that ballot box usually looks something like this:
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because he's got his own agenda.
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because he doesn't understand the issues.
O - idiot who won't listen to the populace, because they're in the back pocket of the corps.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
At lower speeds, people drive closer together. This dramatically lowers visibility and actually increases both the likelihood of, and the number of cars that can be involved in any single accident. But yes, the greater number of injuries will mostly be less severe.
-- The reader anything less than completely failing to not misunderstand this sig is cursed.
Second, I just want a smooth, cruise-control, stress-less commute. Third, I am not alone in this.
Then you do NOT belong in the left lane. The reason that people end up using all lanes as passing lanes is YOU! They have no choice to do more dangerous maneuvers if they want to be able to get past you and others like you. If you want to sit at the same speed without being a jerk, then pick a speed that lets you sit in the right lane without having to pass anyone that often. Roads wouldn't be so damn congested if PEOPLE WOULD JUST USE THE CORRECT FUCKING LANES!
Maybe we should adopt Mexico's immigration policy?
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I think if we just stopped allowing people like this to drive, the roads would be a much safer place...
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
And before bringing up recent bills regarding illegal trafficking of people, and other soft invasion crimes, you should probably read the legislation itself. There's some stiff penalties for false allegations.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
What this shows is that road workers should be allowed to carry firearms and shoot any motorists who venture too close or go too fast.
I mean - 422 deaths in a 7 year period is 60 a year. That's more lethal than the police, and quite a lot of people seem all too eager to trot out the "dangerous work" and "never know who's trying to kill you for doing your job" arguments.
Alternatively - how about lining the road with speed-triggered mines? Drive too fast across one and the mine will stop you dead in your tracks.
Quite easily. All you need is one simple change -- decouple enforcement from revenue.
If I get a ticket because some worthless hamlet dropped the speed limit 10mph to rake in the dough? That's... that's just not acceptable. If I get a ticket because the officer feels that writing me a ticket is the best possible use of his limited time, that's sort of a different story, now innit? And if that municipality is running the cameras as an expense, I'd be more inclined to think that maybe the cameras are doing something useful if they feel that strongly about it.
I'd have a lot more respect for local governments if they just burned whatever fines they collected. Don't turn it over to the state or federal level, that still puts you in quota-land. Just erase it.
(Some people would say that this would mean higher taxes. This is of course incorrect; you would simple pay more money when your taxes are due and less money at all the other times cash is extracted from you for the municipality's profit.)
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Then I guess you haven't lived in countries where certain violations of religious law results in harsh penalties including death and dismemberment.
I come from Texas. Some would say Texas is just as bad or at least a step or two better than Arizona. I am accustomed to the mindsets commonly found within Texas and I don't find them unreasonable. "Reasonable" is also quite "regional" as it turns out. I live in an east coast state now and the attitudes and mindsets are COMPLETELY different. Most notably, so far, is the matter of "complaints." Where I come from, people who complain [too much] are ignored. People who ask nicely, very often get their way or at least a polite and civil negotiation/discussion can occur. Out here, people complain first and then... nothing. No one here seems at all interested in opening a dialog with their neighbors to seek resolution to a disagreement or a disagreeable situation. It is most alien and unreasonable to me, but it is the way people live out here. But then again, the notion of taking retaliatory measures is not at all alien to me and is probably somewhat alien out here. Fact is, I do have a Texas temper which is why I don't want to own a gun -- too tempting to use it. What's a Texas temper? Well, the answer may vary depending on the Texan, but for me, I tend to be extremely patient and forgiving, but if you show clear and intentional disrespect, you just made an enemy, and that's not a word I use lightly.
I've seen some good systems which focus on indicating to drivers when they're going too fast.(rather than trying to keep them from realising they've slipped over the limit so you can fine them)
Traffic lights suspended over the road, if you're going above the speed limit it goes orange, then red.
As you drop bellow the speed limit it goes green again, you only get done for speeding if you fly through the red.
That sounds like a wonderful idea, actually. Where did you see that?
moved to arizona last month, and yeah ive seen the speed cameras and "photo enforcement" signs and the deterrence for me works well. I dont know how much a ticket costs, or what the effect on my license would be or insurance costs, so i stick to the speed limit.
The traffic here is maddening i think. people blast their horns when you make a u-turn, blast their horns to get you to turn right on red at a 3 lane intersection, and dont hesitate to cut you off on the highway if their lane is ending. turn signals are more of a switch on the dash than a realistic concept here. people dont always stop for red lights or red turn arrows and just keep going. the intersections with photo enforcement work very well in deterring this problem, granted this is just from what ive seen so far.
the uncomfortable thing people dont want to do is this: find the speed limit, lock your cruise control to it, and dont break the law. If you follow the rules then speed cameras are just another weird fixture at a four way intersection and you have the added benefit of being a safer driver.
the cameras that catch you blowing through a red light are good too i think, but tend to make me overly paranoid at intersections. Ive ground to a dead halt preemptively at a photo intersection because i was terrified the thing would mail me a citation for running a yellow that turned to a red.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I don't see how that's much different than a sign saying "Photo Enforcement Zone 1/4 mile". It's saying, "Hey, idiot, you have a 1/4mi to slow down or you're getting a ticket!"
Or did you not know that? I was actually in Phoenix (I drove there from CA) less than a month ago so I know first hand what this system looks like.
I think you'd have to be a colossal idiot (or so unaware that you deserve a ticket anyway) to get a ticket from one of these systems, and I did notice that it slowed traffic down on the whole.
They have this habit of turning a congested, but moving road, into a god damned nightmare as people slow down WAY too much and end up causing a traffic jam.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
It was near the france-spanish border.
Not sure where, it was a few years ago.
Don't know if it was a national thing or just something one of the regional governments came up with.
I really wonder what makes people 'idiots' for speeding in a construction zone. Wouldn't the idiot be the construction worker that stepped outside of the cone area in front of a vehicle? I highly doubt getting hit at 40mph vs 70mph is going to make much of a difference, I'm sure both are fatal the majority of the time. If I had to guess I'd say the lower speed limits are for the safety of the drivers, in the case of construction equipment crossing or driving into the lanes.
I bet drivers who kill construction workers who are actually within the cone area are pretty rare - which makes me a bit annoyed at the huge fines and jail time the signs announce for people who hit a worker. Why should someone be over-zealously punished for something that is the fault of the worker?
They're only a money making scheme because people are too stupid and arrogant to keep to the speed limit.
This is the typical arrogance of a pro-camera individual. Nevermind the corruption of the camera system. Nevermind the speed traps (ask Arizonans about driving on the 51 or through Star Valley - they get 50% of their town's revenue from a 65 to a 45 speed limit camera). Nevermind the safety issues (there ARE accidents at the camera locations - here's proof right where I drive). Nevermind the millions being shipped out of the American economy and to Austrailian stock holders. Nevermind the lies about statistics.
All arguments for the cameras come down to FUD, selfishness, and anger/vengeance.
Typical FUD
Typical selfishness/arrogance:
Any my personal favorite - anger/frustration/revenge/self righteous road rage
Your post falls into the arrogance category. Also, the fact that you've switched to biking has probably elevated your snobbishness about your former fellow motorists that you don't even realize how short-sighted you sound.
BTW - the fact that you've been modded up to "+5 Insightful" shows exactly how many scared, arrogant, and/or angry drivers there are out there that would allow a facet of Big Brother to be installed in their lives without the slightest whimper of opposition.
Open your eyes, people - and start having a little faith in your fellow man again...
That's partly due to attempts to make speed cameras inconspicuous.
Ideally they should be placed in locations that are highly visible from a long way back with obvious indicators to let the drivers know if they're going too fast well in advance.
but since the point is to collect as many fines as possible cameras get put where they instead cause situations like you describe.
This may sound like a troll, but isn't Arizona the same state that passed a law authorizing police to arrest people on suspicion of being illegal immigrants? The same legislature is now worried about infringing the privacy of its citizen drivers?
This strikes me as hypocritical. On the one hand, you can detain mestizos and other darker-skinned workers. You can hire them to work as nannies, dish washers, laborers, gardeners, etc, all the while holding the sword of Damocles over their heads: if you get uppity, or get in trouble, we'll get you arrested. On the other hand, you can't photograph or otherwise bring the state apparatus of law enforcement to bear on white people speeding in public.
This sounds like two different set of rules for two different social classes. Oh, I forgot: the USA is a classless society.
Alejo Hausner
Absolutely sickened me. A bad slip up, unexpected lane change of another vehicle, or a simple miscalculation on the light and it could have been on CNN.
I would happily support cameras on each end watching and timing plates. Ticketing anyone who speeds in a school zone during morning and afternoon student/bus/walker travel times.
It would have ended up on CNN even if there was a speed camera there.
Except they would have recieved a fine in the mail two weeks later.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
That whole "slow down at the cameras, then speed up" was going to end in Arizona eventually. How? Through those cameras.
Redflex's contract with DPS had a stipulation for what they called "point to point" tracking. With a real-time database, ANPR (license plate reading tech), and their 2/47 video recording system (with a 6 month archive), they were going to give you a ticket if you got from Camera A to Camera B too quickly.
They have it installed in Show Low, Arizona as a pilot program, and if they'd garnered the political will, they would've turned in on across Arizona.
Nevermind the security implications (a private company knowing when I'm home or not, based on my car's location). They were going to do it ASAP, solely to increase revenue... (BTW - before anyone says something about a cell phone and GPS, that's a VOLUNTARY thing. You have no opt out with a state-run camera system.
Not to be a dick, but it's usually the intelligent that have problems with common sense and looking both ways before crossing. Head in the clouds and all that.
Ok, i give you the point on slamming brakes, because we really don't have any points other than personal experience. However, i'd rather they notice the 20mph sign late and slam on the brakes than notice the kid crossing too late.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
"I'd rather inconvenience you for 500meters than have hundreds of kids crossing a potential killzone."
Is your justification at inconviencing people really for safety, or is your advocacy of inconvenience and rule following really so people are really pushed into breaking the rules such that you feel better about yourself and point to how wrong they are, with safety a cover to your righteous indignation?
I'd rather understand the cause of the kill zone and eliminate the killzone entirely as much as possible, thank you, instead of these false remedies that are then replicated everywhere.
A lot of these speed reduction zones are at traditional schools; that's the one it is, that's the way it was done, that's the way it'll continue.
People like you tend to not analyze the whole situation and place blame on the most immediate, simplistic thing that you can get bunches of people to agree upon. Speeding in a school zone bad? No shit. Why the state puts a school next to a major road or builds a major road next to a school, that's not at all criticized is it? Why the hell do you have kids crossing a FOUR LANE BUSY STREET, where you give means (passing lane) and cause (speed reduction) is beyond me. You can put up damn cameras all you want, you can remove licenses all you want, people will STILL speed and create a dangerous environment *because the environment was allowed to be made that way*.
I live in a rural/suburban area, and we have these school zones sometimes. It's 15mph, and I slow down everytime. Interestingly, the safetest, least bogged down venues where I've seen the least amount of rule infraction as well as least amount of danger to the people in the vincinity (that includes drivers, cross guards, busses, and children) are the schools with NO school zones or speed reduction zones. Why? Because there is no school zone, the kids and parents know this and don't have kids crossing the busy ass street. People also don't feel the need to speed through in aggravation, because the speed limit is reasonable and traffic isn't slowed when there *aren't* students around. *People are not always rational.* They are largely situational, and when they have to get somewhere, or have an emergency, they don't a rat's ass that traffic isn't moving or moving piss ass slow. I'm not saying the violators are right, I'm saying you're creating a situation where violations are more likely to occur, which IF safety is your primary goal, leads anyone to conclude that eliminating the points of aggravation, not insisting on sheer rules, works better.
I'll give you 2 examples where I am. In Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, USA, Conestoga Valley high school has a huge school zone on 2 streets. Half the time the lights flash, there's no students anywhere. Further, when the lights flash, people do slow down, but seeing no one, they tend to speed up or go over the speed limit. The signs also are stretched out to such a distance, traffic slows, sees no one, then people get annoyed and speed up, and hit an area where there ARE students (the same area all the time). This speed up and slow down also sometimes causes traffic to back up. Further, the revised lower speed limit covers a huge stretch of road, on 2 sides, next to the school.
Compare that to Manheim Township high school. More traffic, tighter roadways, more conflict. No speed limit reduction on at least 2 of the 3 sides of the school What do they do? They don't treat their kids with with kids gloves, despite more of them walking home to nearby residential neighborhoods than CV. They bus people out in hordes. There are several routes around the busy streets, so there are no bottlenecks or excuse to cut through next to the time school lets out. And they STOP TRAFFIC COMPLETELY when bussing out for a generally fixed interval (lots of busses get through, not 1 or 2).
Now, you might be saying, wait, we talking younger kids, not high schoolers. Fine. East Petersburg Elementary has the stupid 15mph school zone. People break
Hey, if it significantly increases safety of workers, it's probably worth more than the life insurance costs...
Did you try hard to miss "from what I experience" in my post? Do you really suggest that, somehow, my experiences are ignorant?
Experiences as a passenger; so quite a lot of them over the years. And you, while calling me ignorant, relied on just...one counterexample, kudos to you!
(have you heard about fun facts that 50 vs. 80 makes for a much longer breaking distance (if one even notices any possible obstruction in time - again from my experiences, common speeders do it just as often, if not more, during the night..."there's less traffic" after all), shortens the time of reaction considerably and makes for a much more dangerous situation if you need to perform sudden manouver?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Because we need a system that permits drivers to be even more inattentive than they already are?
If you are unable or unwilling to obey traffic regulations, stop driving. It's as simple as that. Otherwise it's not about looking to "improve the current ineffective system," it's about looking for ways to internally justify your failings as a driver. I note that all of your suggestions include an implicit forgiveness for ignoring all those high-contrast black-on-white signs and the largest gauge on the instrument panel that's designed to be in your field of view, because it's not you, it's them.
The majority of that post was pretty much describing how much pleasure the poster gets trolling everyone who is unlucky enough to share the road with him. I like to think he was modded (-1, troll) for real-life trolling that could get people killed.
and that was the bit of sarcastic irony in my statement :(
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Well those fellows got their profiling bill through - maybe they just didn't want to push the envelope into totalitarianism too quickly?
How does this work on a road with only two lanes inyour direction? Does everyone drive in the right lane, except the people in the left lane who are "passing" a neverending stream of cars? Or, everyone drives in the right lane, and the left is empty except for the occasional person leapfrogging? I'm honestly baffled as to the practical workings of a "left lane is passing-only" policy. Please explain, so that should I ever visit your state, I won't be a jackass. :)
Huh?
The slow lane on that road is where people enter and exit. More dangerous than the right lane.
Move to the left when someone enters. Not that hard.
For the record, I've learned that 'your preferred speed' is often just a little faster than the prevailing average... Not yours personally, but time and again, when I travelled in the left lane at 70, 'everyone' seemed to want to go 72.
Confirmation bias, you're only going to notice those who are passing you. You never see all the people going the same speed as you, because you never pass them.
I know full well the impact of hanging in the left lane at the speed limit, and having people swerve by.
Then why do you do it? Stay in the right lane and people will zip past without swerving making it safer for everyone.
And driving 80 through traffic doing 65 is not as safe as driving 65 with the traffic doing 65.
Since you can't control the speed at which others drive, that's irrelevant. What you can do is make them drive 80 *past* traffic that's driving 65, instead of *through*.
Be honest, it's not about time. It's about getting your way.
I agree. Aggressive speeders are jackasses. But so are you. Be honest, it's not about safety. It's about you getting your way.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's possible the camera would mistakenly ticket you for driving properly, if it associates someone else's speed with your car. The solution to this is to take multiple pictures, and have evenly-spaced lines in the camera view that an expert witness can use to calculate the speed your car was going from the photographic evidence.
the spy plane monitoring cell phone calls that just one station reported on, which then withdrew the story and later denied the story had ever existed.
There's also a whole bunch of stupid morons who welcome the ultimate nanny state and apparently won't be happy until every road and freeway has at most a 10 mph speed limit.
They can only exist because there will always be an argument that speed limits should be reduced further because you can always find someone stupid enough to manage to get themselves hurt in or by a car, no matter how slow it was going.
Society, especially those do-gooders, need to accept that individuals, not the state, have responsibility for their own safety, and that preventing any risk of human injury at absolutely any cost to society is a ridiculous road to go down. Removal of absolutely all physical danger is impossible to achieve in this world anyway.
Apart from anything else, by removing all forms of natural selection we are really harming the human gene pool.
Which is just an argument that every law is for the best, as if they weren't they'd be different. Similar to Dr. Pangloss's claim (in Voltaire's Candide) that this is the "best of all possible worlds".
And no, being deaf isn't being a jackass. Mrs. Grundy blasting her TV at midnight (because she's hard of hearing) secure in the knowledge that the cops won't enforce the noise ordinancy against her, while complaining about noise from a party which she can't even hear all that well and doesn't, in fact, violate the ordinance and being listened to because the cops find it easier to shut the party down than to tell off old Mrs. Grundy... that's jackassery. The exact sort noise ordinances encourage and enable.
"They have no choice to do more dangerous maneuvers if they want to be able to get past you and others like you"
That is PRECISELY my point, thank you for distilling it into a specific and purposeful rant.
So I'm at fault for obeying the law, and those who choose to drive more dangerously are to be excused and accomodated?
While it is practical to get out of the way of a reckless driver, it sure isn't 'right'. My initial post laid out my desire for a peaceful commute. I am no longer offended by other drivers who obey the law.
Your attitude speaks volumes about our society, and the general attitude of 'whatever I can get away with'. This permeates the Internet community (where it has good and bad applications), the political arena, our financial markets, and virtually every part of American society.
Let's get this clear, ok? the complaints I'm hearing are essentially that I am not accomodating the lawbreakers, and they are therefore left with the option of either endangering other drivers or submitting to the law.
My post also pointed out the genuine and beneficial impact of speed cameras on the highway here - slowing down the worst offenders, and reducing the number and severity of accidents and deaths. This is undesireable how? Your attitude seems, by logical extension, to also require that the cameras be turned off, to prevent speeders from being encoutraged to abruptly change speed, endangering themselves and others. Come on, their act of speeding is the problem, not the cameras or the 'rest of us' who are not driven (pun intended) to drive just as damned fast as we can get away with.
It this were the Autobahn, where the speed limit in the left lane is your ability, road and weather conditions, traffic, vehicle capabilities, and vehicle condition, I would Not be in the left lane. But it is not the Autobahn. You want me to pull over to get out of the way of a driver that is, in reality, driving too fast for the conditions. I am not alone in the left lane, doing the limit.
Just as an exercise, if I should move over for a driver going 70, should I also do so for a driver going 75? 85? 135? Just so you know, when the 101 Pima cameras were being tested, they clocked violators in excess of 120MPH Some of those violators, despite the stated plan to test and not summons, did get tickets. The kid driving from his rear seat was pretty funny. The woman who got flashed 30+ times in 3 weeks got special attention. Honorable mention to the guy with the gorilla suit. People are stupid.
I should probably be more concerned that someone is going to shoot me one day for being in the left lane. But so far as I can tell, you don't need to do anything wrong to get shot out here. It is not about you.
And for the speeders, it is not about me. It's about them. No matter how fast I go, someone wants to go faster. I guess I can live with having that confrontation at 65 instead of 80, since the confrontation is inevitable, and is not going to be initiated by me anyways.
Your logic is dangerous, more so than mine. And I guarantee you do not get it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The exact sort noise ordinances encourage and enable.
So is, or is not, that ordinance doing what it was intended to do?
I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's what we did, and as a result the cameras are coming down (at least the DPS-operated ones; the city-operated ones are staying for now).
And I agree, speed cameras (as detestable as I find them) alone aren't a reason to reach for the ammo box. Now, state-operated monitoring cameras in everyone's home is another matter. When they start talking about something Orwellian like that, it's time to get out the guns and start shooting. But I seriously doubt that violent revolution (in the USA at any rate) will ever be a viable method to change things again. The place is just too large, and the people too apathetic and non-agreeing. No revolution would ever have enough supporters to succeed, and even if everyone were pissed off enough to overthrow the government, no one would agree on what the new government should look like: 1/3 of the country wants a religious theocracy, 1/3 wants a communist system where the government takes care of everyone, most of the other 1/3 doesn't care, and only a tiny, tiny minority cares much for a government that gives people freedom like the Founding Fathers wanted. And no one wants a European-style government with higher taxes, lots of social services, and strong regulation of business and finance. The only way any kind of revolution would succeed is if the country broke up, but I don't see that either because the ideological divide isn't as much geographical as it is urban vs. rural, though the midwest states (Nebraska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc.) might want to secede and form their own theocracy since there it seems like everyone is of that mindset.
I haven't read a more eloquent version of, "Think of the CHILDREN!!", in a long time...
I assume you talking about the support for the State law making being a Illegal immigrant against state law (not just federal.) What is interesting was all the TV (non scientific) polls showed 75% of people were against the law in AZ, until it passed; and all the national news made a big deal about it. Now polls shows 75% of Arizona people are in-favor of the law. How much of that was education, and changes to the bill to clarify profiling wasn't part of the bill, and how much of the flip was rejection of outsiders telling us we can't enforce federal laws the same as Border Patrol, I don't know.
I will just say profiling can be a good thing for all. Currently border patrol stops every car on the interstate. Since (a guess for argument sake) 99% of white/black people are legal, and 90% of the rest are legal. Would a hispanic person sitting behind 10 non-hispanic people rather they spend 5 minutes questioning each and every person in line in front of him, making him wait 50 minutes, or would he rather they wave through the 10 people in front of him who are less likely to be illegal, and only question him for 5 minutes. Without profiling he waits 50 minutes for 5 minutes of questioning, With profiling it takes him 5 minutes.
Wow... A full page post describing yourself as a complete asshole. I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a thing on /. before.
I've been to AZ a number of times, having to drive from Tucson airport to Ft. Huachuca on business. It's a long drive, entirely on the highway, and I can assure you that most people know how to drive. Unlike you, most people are not assholes that feel they need to regulate the speed of other motorists. Remaining in the left lane on a highway actually makes the highway more dangerous by forcing people to pass you in the slower moving right lane. That is why your behavior is illegal. You just have some sort of grandiose feeling of superiority and dwell on controlling other people's actions, and I'm sure if someone was killed due to your unsafe behavior, you would simply shrug it off as the other person's fault, even though your decision caused a chain of actions that inevitably caused a person's death.
Often times, at least in my home state, speed traps are set up in tourist-type areas. One of the major thoroughfares from Northeastern Wisconsin to Southwestern Wisconsin goes through the city of Rosendale. The town has artificially low speed limits that drop very quickly from highway speeds. Unsuspecting out-of-towners mapquesting their way through the city get royally screwed quite regularly - the town issued more speeding tickets in 2007 than its own population. Of course, the city has garnered a reputation for being a speed trap, to the point that you can buy t-shirts that read "Rosendale - Just the Ticket," but it still manages to wrangle unsuspecting motorists at a ridiculous rate.
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/jeffwagner/45156357.html
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
At least you get to listen to good music (or good talk radio) while you work. Unlike my terribly boring job stocking shelves in a store that did $12K a day in sales while being forced to listen to the same 50 songs from the 1980's over and over again.
But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
Don't tread on me. Period.
Just wait until that guy falls asleep from the boredom and plows into a few construction workers.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I'm curious why you assume I'm going to ask for citations.
That was not directed at you specifically, it was toward anyone who read my post. Some people just like to contradict for the hell of it, and I was saving them some time. Sorry for the confusion.
I'm not talking about a car going 75 hitting my car going 45. I'm talking about a roadside worker or pedestrian getting hit by a car going 45. When I mentioned the ability to maneuver, I was talking about the person in the car. I doubt my reaction time would be fast enough to dodge a car going 45 or 75.
Then I suppose we are comparing apples to oranges. I was talking about when the speed limit is 45 even in the heat of the summer when, in Arizona, there would not be any construction workers out. They usually work at night or early morning to avoid the heat, and at noon, I think putting the speed limit back to 55-60 from 45 would make it safer overall as far as vehicular accidents go. Regardless of speed limits posted, there will always be idiots driving 75 if it's a freeway. If there aren't construction workers present to justify the 45 mph limit, why not change it to 55-60 when they aren't present? Like school zones that say "15 mph when children present" (note, these are much less common now than the "15 mph between 6 am and 4 pm" ones, but I used to see them all the time).
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
Where did the grandparent advocate removing traffic lights?
...by having chronic offenders see the "Photo enforcement zone" sign on the side of the road, lock up all four wheels to slow down in time for the van a quarter mile away, and then speed right back up again as soon as they're past the van, secure in the knowledge that there won't be another van for several miles.
I can't speak to these speed camera vans, but one of the favorite games of cops around here (and elsewhere) is to set up a second speed trap 1-2 miles past the first.
One Memorial Day weekend in Maryland, I witnessed speed traps set up every few miles along the entire length of Route 50. (Rt 50 has the only bridge across the Chesapeake Bay north of Norfolk, IIRC, and hence is the shortest route to the beach for anyone in the D.C. area.) I'm not sure how they actually managed to catch anyone, since traffic was flowing well below the speed limit in most sections, but there wasn't a single trap with fewer than three cars stopped.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
You're angry, that's cool. I will be your punching bag for today.
Not all schools have this problem, it is usually caused by growth. Look at Germany, in the towns there are crosswalks every 100meters and in the city there are crosswalk lights that stop traffic for the walker.
I'm with you on the bus parts, the buses should mass leave and enter with little disruption to the roads. But there are quite a lot of students that walk each day, that is the primary concern.
Just putting up lights that blink all day is a stupid idea, i'm with you on that. If they put up restricted speed lights at all they should go off twice a day for a short but decent amount of time. If the school is isolated the only vehicle traffic will be school related. If the school grew up by a major road (or a major road was planned right past the school) there isn't much that can be done.. the lights must go up. Ever seen a kids playing by the side of a busy 45mph street? scary shit man.
So if i can impose those speed limits on you, i certainly would. I wouldn't impose stupid on you though.. we all get enough stupid throughout the day.. the world doesn't need stupid slow down areas. But it does need caution areas where people... need to exercise caution.
After thought: it's not easy to move a school or divert a major road, that's why the lights are a popular option on roads immediately adjacent to the school.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
I agree on that. There is a major problem in PA where they leave the signs up even when the work zone is not active. At least cover it with a black bag or tip the sign over if there is no active work zone. It falls under the over use of warning signs where you begin to disregard them when they are necessary.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
"Move to the left when someone enters. Not that hard."
In congested traffic, it sometimes is. Remember, we got to this point because it's not always easy to change lanes when you want to pass someome going slower than you. Same problem with merging traffic in the right lane.
"Confirmation bias, you're only going to notice those who are passing you. You never see all the people going the same speed as you, because you never pass them."
I wrote "'everyone' seemed to want to go 72". I know not everyone IS going 72. I'm not the dullest radish in the basket, despite your protests to the opposite.
"Then why do you do it? Stay in the right lane and people will zip past without swerving making it safer for everyone."
Until they come across the landsacapers. Or someone who drives like I do. We are not alone. I am not the only obstacle.
"Since you can't control the speed at which others drive, that's irrelevant. What you can do is make them drive 80 *past* traffic that's driving 65, instead of *through*."
No, I can't. I am only one.
"I agree. Aggressive speeders are jackasses. But so are you. Be honest, it's not about safety. It's about you getting your way."
Well, when you put it that way, it makes less sense than before.
My experience so far has been that I have fewer close calls in the left lane than I do in the right-hand lanes. YMMV. The HOV lane is also a regular option for the determined speeders, since they don't seem to mind breaking two laws at once, rather than just one.
I do get it - I'm as convinced I'm right as you are convinced I'm wrong.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Or they might just do this.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
is there a way to design roads and cars that can be safely navigated at the speeds people want to drive? Can we make a highway and a car both safe at 100 MPH?
I suspect the only real solution is a widespread Personal Rapid Transit system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
All computer controlled on tracks means 100Mph should be fairly trivial to accomplish. Of course, this is all unlikely to happen, but it is a nice thought.
How can a lower speed limit make conditions less safe?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods
Not in my back yard!
It isn't 24/7. It's only when you're operating deadly machinery in the presence of others.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Arizona has no such signs, because Arizona has no "Slower Traffic Keep Right" law on the books. This allows Californians to cruise Interstate 10 all the way to Phoenix without moving out of the left lane. They always look genuinely surprised when someone passes them on the right and gives them a dirty look.
> I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box,
> ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
I mostly agree but... until a camera lens can trasmit matter and cause it to come out the screen, harming the person monitoring it.... until that day, I hold a far lower standard for picking up a gun to take out some cameras than I would for taking out some people. So long as its done with regard for minimizing any risk of damage to other property or lives (which rules out most urban use, or at least calls for different methodology) then I would applaud such forms of protest.
Any idea what a 300 mW laser will do to a camera CCD? You can get the diode for about $20 on ebay with a housing and glass lense costing all of about $10 more....
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
In summary, you're happy to disrupt the flow of traffic for everyone, including those doing the limit, because of some misplaced sense of moral superiority. To add to your self-righteousness, you are not concerned whether your actions are legal in the state of Arizona, only that others are breaking the law.
I'd have written you off as a troll if I didn't already know people with the same attitude.
I'd rather the cops here work on taking down the gangs, rather than waste their time stopping idiots who are incapable of following rules. You may not like the rules, and feel like going faster is still safe... which is why you should be writing your city, or using your spare time to go door to door with a petition or something to CHANGE said speed limit.
Until you do that, you're just a worthless, dangerous prick whom I'm glad is getting stuck with a pile of bills and higher license/insurance fees.
The law in Europe is the opposite: if you're driving faster than the lane to your left, then you have to move over.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Let's get this clear, ok? the complaints I'm hearing are essentially that I am not accomodating the lawbreakers, and they are therefore left with the option of either endangering other drivers or submitting to the law.
You can't control other drivers. If they want to drive stupidly/aggressively, there is nothing that you can do to stop that. You might feel good about slowing them down briefly, but you are making a somewhat dangerous situation worse by giving the aggressive driver no less dangerous option.
So your options are thus:
- Be a left lane vigilante: break the law yourself and create more dangerous situation for you and those around you. (And temporarily prevent one or more people from speeding) - Move to the right: Avoid breaking the law yourself while not creating a more dangerous situation, but allowing others to speed without impediment.
Morally, the second option is better, because you are not personally breaking the law, or increasing the danger of the situation. But you care more about making a point than actual safety. -
Well, Michigan is 70, at least, which made it terribly annoying when driving to PA where I had to slow down to 55 on I-80. Of course, everyone else was going 70 anyway, so you just follow traffic..
The only time I've heard "percentile" used since taking statistics in high school was when looking at bandwidth costs for VPS hosting.
may or may not specify? yeah, it does specify, and you're correct, no one follows it, including you apparently.
I was referring to the individual that shot the poor bastard who was doing paperwork in a camera van. Acts of civil disobedience (i.e: smashing the camera) are another matter entirely.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
news flash- I don't even own a car but unlike you I don't interpret every posible improvement as some kind of insult to my ability.
Let me guess- you're deluded that you're an absolutely fantastic driver.
You have raised a point I have been wondering on for a while. It really doesn't work with only two lanes of traffic, especially when in real world conditions you'll have people going faster OR slower than the speed limit in either lane, keeping you from staying in one or the other even if you're trying to do the speed limit. I've done a fair amount of interstate driving and would definitely notice that people tend to keep out of the left lane unless they're passing (usually over the speed limit, but still), though.
There is no doubt that speed kills. Back in the days of the dreaded 55mph limit roads were safer. Anyone who has experienced a high speed bow out can verify the fear and difficulty of controlling a car when that occurs. Although some cars behave better than others with a blown tire some will turn into a nightmare in which the brakes can not be touched and the car must come to a stop on its own. At 80mph the impact of an accident is in a different universe than at slower speeds and driver skills often have no play at all in an accident. We had a fellow flip his pickup and die in the wee hours when an alligator flipped his truck when he struck it at speed. There weren't any amber lights on that gator! It blended right into the road as in the dark it was almost the same color at night.
Its posted 55 because people will drive 75. If it were posted 75, people would do 80-90+. Its the nature of people to bend or break rules they don't see the need for. 20 over the speed limit? You get a fine. 30+? Loss of license.
West Virginia is 70 mph on Interstates. Pennsylvania is still 65 mph. Don't know about KY, IN, or MI.
"Me fail English, that's unpossible." --Ralphie
I say, wait until someone sends you a picture to your house of you going 1 mph over the speed limit while your mistress is in the car with you.
First people here started having girlfriends, then wives, and now mistresses! Go nerds!
Traffic bunches up, less reaction time in case of a slowing or stoppage.
I'd be rather interested to find someone capable of not following all the laws at the same time..
Or better yet, post an actual Police Officer on the street during the times when people need reminding to slow the fuck down and drive carefully. It will have a much bigger impact on safety than simply sending someone a ticket in the mail after the fact. Although I have to admit that anyone who is so unaware as to miss "flashing yellow lights held up above the road with a bright "20" lit up" is probably not going to see the police car either... but the police officer will see them, and stop them, and remind them of exactly what they are doing wrong -immediate reinforcement.
Wow, you are really a shining example of how horribly under-educated the american public is.
That's only unsafe when someone is driving faster than is reasonable and prudent under the current conditions.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The United States, Mexico and Canadian road network isn't the UK road network.
Now I've lumped them all together because I've driven on them all, and all three countries share the same road design ideas, have the same sized vehicles and have the same basic geographical features.
All three countries have vast stretches of roads where there isn't a lot of people pulling into traffic and causing near collisions, nor are there a lot of close junctions. There are thousands and thousands of miles of two lane and elevated freeway/expressway/motorways in North America where you won't see another automobile for miles.
In those places its much better for the driver to drive the road and its conditions than to rely on a set limit.
That's the second time you've referenced Darwin or the gene pool. Are you sure how you have a firm grasp of how "survival of the fittest" works? Mother gorillas throwing their young out into the jungle with a hearty "good luck!"? No, the parents protect their young from the deadly parts of the environment to ensure survival of the species. In the case of school children, it's protection from 4000 lb. vehicles driven by creatures of questionable qualifications to do so.
A six-year old is flighty at best, easily distracted, and certainly not reliably equipped to deal with "do it wrong, and you're dead" situations such as always being on guard against cell-phone talking SUV drivers doing 50mph. So I don't think it's a big deal to make folks slow down for a minute or two at 2:30 when the kiddies get out.
Additionally, the fact that you point out "people around here don't know how to drive" only makes the case for school zone speed limits.
OTOH, the school zone on the large road near me does nothing but cause the traffic to bunch up, making it hard for oncoming vehicles to turn into school, requiring a cop to direct traffic. There's no kids around so as far as I can tell, there's no need for it at all. Any flow issues could easily be addressed with a part time traffic light. It just shows that standard solutions are not a good fit for all situations.
"Wow... A full page post describing yourself as a complete asshole. I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a thing on /. before."
You must be new here. Wait, you're an AC. Nevermind.
"I've been to AZ a number of times, having to drive from Tucson airport to Ft. Huachuca on business."
The I-10 and I-19 are not the loop 101. I don't hang in the left lane on the I-10 unless I'm keeping up. And there is less speed differential there than on the 101. Come to Phoenix some time and get a taste of rush-hour traffic. Almost as bad as the 128, and I can drive the 128 with the best of them.
"Unlike you, most people are not assholes that feel they need to regulate the speed of other motorists."
You, like many, just don't get it. I don't much care how fast other people drive, really. I just want to be in the lane where the speed is consistent, and I don't get bothered by people looking to be one car-length ahead of whoever is in front of them. The left lane works for that. Remember, no matter what lane I'm in, someone wants to be ahead of me. It doesn't matter. No, it really doesn't.
"Remaining in the left lane on a highway actually makes the highway more dangerous by forcing people to pass you in the slower moving right lane. That is why your behavior is illegal."
From AZDOT's web pages: "Police agencies necessarily rely on reasonable and well recognized speed laws to control the unreasonable violator whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic."
The question is, then is my driving the speed limit in the right-hand lane 'unreasonable'? Arizona has this to say about 'unreasonable' speed.
In Arizona, it is not illegal to stay in the left-hand lane on highways marked with three lanes or more. See item #3. The Pima 101 is three or more lanes all the length I drive it each day. Yet, there is this language: "a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing". Again, is driving the limit to be considered 'less than the normal speed'? Interesting.
Then the minimum speed limits law is no less vague about 'reasonable'.
Airzona 'racing' law states "2. "Racing" means the use of one or more vehicles in an attempt to outgain or outdistance another vehicle or prevent another vehicle from passing." I'm not sure about this, but by that definition MOST other drivers are guilty of this at some point every damned day. No, I'm not *trying* to prevent another vehicle from passing me. If I don't change lanes, they have other lanes to use, unless the lanes are full, in which case there is just no safe way to pass at that time. This happens when there is someone driving in the left-hand lane doing 75 in a 65 also. It is not so simple as you think.
The question is, is the speed limit the 'normal speed of traffic'? In my experience, I am in fact traveling faster than 85% of the traffic on the road. I doubt the speeders actually constitute 5% of the traffic. I'll be counting the next few days to see how many vehicles I pass vs how many pass me. I might have to try the center lane to see if it makes a diffence. Mind you, the center lane exposes me to passers on *both* sides. If I die in an accident, you are to blame, right?
And in Arizona it is in fact not illegal to pass on the right with a few exceptions.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
" You speed, you're break the law, plain and simple."
Why should I care about the speed limit when you are so obviously
willing to do terrible things to English grammar rules ?
In other words, shut the fuck up, moron.
If you are moving slower than other traffic, do your best to stay in the right lane, or at least use available opportunities to move right to allow people to pass before moving back to the left
Basically, the rule is don't do anything that causes a back up of cars behind you when there is also a wide open space in front of you. Obey this, and you won't come off as an asshole.
What do you mean by hair trigger? that it triggers every time somebody breaks the speed limit, or triggers when somebody just breaks the speed limit? If it's the speed limit and you're over it, isn't that still breaking the speed limit?
FYI, AZ DOT does have a policy in place to try and prevent what your saying. Although some of their actions, such as placing a cameras at a site with newly lowered speed limits, at the transition...
In general AZ does seam to have more reasonable speed limits than other places I have been, still too many drivers do not react well to the cameras (excessive slowing down.) It is surprising considering for the most part AZ doesn't go after people who ignore the citations.
Except that there are/were whole towns in Ohio and a few other states that were incorporated to do little more than being speed traps for unwary motorists--usually those coming off the nearby interstates. Their "populations" consisted of nothing more than the town council and the "police" and the only thing in town was a jail and courthouse. Ohio only recently moved against these corruption pits and I'm not sure if they are still there or not.
I've driven the Autobahn in the 70s, and those rules would do us a lot of good. But those aren't the rules.
If you like the laws of the autobahn, why do you use them? They are pretty darn strict about lane usage. There is nothing from preventing you from taking on those laws as your own, even if they aren't official laws here.
That's almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Similar to construction workers that think it's somehow OK to drive a backhoe on the freeway at 20 mph when the rest of traffic trying to get past going 70 mph.
Speed doesn't kill people. Great differences in speed kill people. What happens when you get one idiot at the front driving 55 mph and 10 aggressive drivers behind him are darting in and out of lanes trying to pass him on the shoulder, in oncoming traffic, etc? It's the perfect environment for an accident.
I'm not worried so much about the guy at the front driving 55 mph. I'm more worried about the asshole that's going to plow me from behind or side-swipe me because I'm stuck behind the guy driving 55 mph.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
sorry, typo. Meant to say "why don't you use them?"
Speed limits often take into account the population density of the surrounding area and traffic density, so the same road may have different speed limits in different areas.
It's not a minute or two at 2:30. The school zones here run from 2:30-4:30. Do the kids take two hours to cross the street? It's ridiculous. And I can kind of understand the school zone in front of the elementary school, but the other one that's apparently near some high school, which is too far off the main road to even see, where I've never seen one kid EVER, even though I've been through there at all times of the day, is just a stupid money generator for the city. There's always at least 4 cop cars there after 2:30. Why aren't they there the rest of the day? Instead of paying four "Dallas constables" or whatever their silly title is, why not just use the wasted $160k/yr and build a bridge across the street? They don't seem to have any other purpose. I've never seen a "constable" doing anything but sitting in a school zone. As for the cameras, further up on my drive home they have a couple of red-light cameras. They cause the same brake-slamming. And the silly thing doesn't even take pictures from the front, so they can't prove who was driving the car anyway. How about they go arrest the assholes who can't seem to figure out how to drive in one lane, or who drive 90 on the freeway, or who think you're supposed to stop 300 feet from the red light and then inch up 6 inches at a time, only to stop 3 feet past the line, blocking the crosswalk?
Yep. And if you're not choosing to obey the laws you do obey, you're not a free man, you're an automaton.
In congested traffic, it sometimes is. Remember, we got to this point because it's not always easy to change lanes when you want to pass someome going slower than you. Same problem with merging traffic in the right lane.
You have other options to make space for someone merging. If you can't move to the left, speed up or slow down.
I wrote "'everyone' seemed to want to go 72". I know not everyone IS going 72. I'm not the dullest radish in the basket, despite your protests to the opposite.
Ooohkay. What seems to happen is irrelevant, what actually happens is what matters.
Until they come across the landsacapers. Or someone who drives like I do. We are not alone. I am not the only obstacle.
Yes, but at least they are not swerving near you anymore. That at least keeps you safer.
No, I can't. I am only one.
Thank god.
My experience so far has been that I have fewer close calls in the left lane than I do in the right-hand lanes.
You must be doing something wrong. I keep to the right unless passing, keep my speed within 5mph of the speed limit, leave plenty of space in front of me, and don't pass at all in congested traffic. I haven't had any close calls worth mentioning.
In my experience the more a driver complains about other people acting unsafely, the greater danger he is. Proper driving means leaving yourself enough distance and time that you can deal with almost any mistake another driver can make.
Please, come over to the right lane and stop forcing aggressive speeders into my lane.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Kids used to cross the freeway on their way home when my parents were in school. This is the period in time when the speed limit was around 75, people usually did 90. Had those land boats with drum brakes that didn't stop the cars very well if you locked them up. And they also had traffic lights installed on the freeway as well..to help with the kids crossing. And I think they only killed 1 or 2 kids during my parents time in school. Now there's more cars on the road, safer cars, and the same number or less of kids in the same schools. And most of the kids are bused home, when most walked the whole way home during my parents time.
I don't see a problem with stopping traffic entirely in vicinity of a school when the kids are being let out. Put some signs a mile or so out warning people the road will be closed while school is being let out and let them detour around. You COULD allow them uturn at the closing points, but people are stupid and will uturn early and cause accidents in the process of it. But the whole reason I believe it's more dangerous now than when my parents were in school is number of vehicles and distracted driving. So they can either make it harder to get and maintain a license to control the numbers.....or punish people who are on the phone, turned to scream at their kids in the backseat, fiddling with the radio in heavy moving traffic, or are generally driving unsafely due to unknown cause (drinking/drugs)....which can be medications they aren't following directions on, medical conditions (diabetes comes to mind) they aren't controlling, or generally just being too old to safely drive in the conditions they are in.
And then proceed to remove the license and vehicle from the person who is endangering others instead of just warning them.
And I also believe people over a pre-determined age like 55-65 range should have to renew their license more frequently because this age group and older are dangerous as hell on the road. We all know young drivers are dangerous, but elderly drivers often don't even realize how dangerous they are.....assuming they can remember it tomorrow. When going to the local hospital branch I've nearly been ran over by these elderly drivers about 1 in 5 visits, they will back out into you..because they can't turn around enough to properly look behind the vehicle. Also when making turns, they can't turn their head enough to see properly....or have limited peripheral vision..or generally just don't give a damn because they are old and sick.
In Tasmania, there is (at least) one permanent speed camera, which is even marked on all the road maps. they still pick up 400 people a week...
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Does everyone drive in the right lane, except the people in the left lane who are "passing" a neverending stream of cars? Or, everyone drives in the right lane, and the left is empty except for the occasional person leapfrogging?
Yes, and yes. Depending on the amount of traffic there is. I'm honestly baffled as to the practical working of a "drive in whatever the fuck lane you want" policy. Is faster traffic supposed to just weave in and out of the slower traffic? What happens when two people are driving 55mph in both lanes?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Sometimes I think governmental stupidity comes from the chairs the people sit in, rather than from the individuals involved. The city I used to live in went through three iterations of councilmembers trying to turn the largest city park into a golf course. Every two years we'd turf out the old set and elect new members who, as part of their platform, promised not to turn the park into a golf course, and every time, they'd vote in favor of turning the park into a golf course, requiring a voter initiative on the off-year ballot to cancel the project.
After the third time, the voters amended the city charter to include a clause forbidding the park to be turned into a golf course. The council still commissions a study on turning the park into a golf course every other year, but at least they can no longer follow through on it.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
How can a lower speed limit make conditions less safe?
From a formal study (Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084 U.S. Department of Transportation Research, Development, and Technology - Federal Highway Administration):
" Unrealistic limits increase accident risks for persons who attempt to comply with limit by driving slower or faster than the majority of road users, Unreasonably low limits significantly decrease driver compliance and give road users such as person not familiar with the road and pedestrians, a false indication of actual traffic speeds."
and:
"Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent. "
Every time I pull out to pass a car that doing 1 or 2 mph less than the speed limit a huge traffic jam erupts behind me. I think it's funny...
The other problem I have is that I don't cut people off to get back into the right lane, so I have to wait until the whole queue has passed me on the right before I can get back to the slow lane. Again, rather humorous.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Most everyone that is making your point also fails to recognize these problems:
1. No matter what lane I'm in, other drivers do make unsafe lane changes to maintain excessive speed. No way around it.
2. No matter what lane I'm in, eventually someone wants to pass me.
3. Sometimes, despite my willingness to get out of their way, I can't... Congestion sucks for me too.
4. What I'm doing is not illegal.
But none of that matters.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"You must be doing something wrong. I keep to the right unless passing, keep my speed within 5mph of the speed limit, leave plenty of space in front of me, and don't pass at all in congested traffic. I haven't had any close calls worth mentioning."
I keep my speed within 5mph of the speed limit, leave plenty of space in front of me, and don't pass at all in congested traffic. I also haven't had any close calls worth mentioning.
Hmmm...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
I happen to agree with you on the order of the 4 boxes, but the first three have arguably NOT worked.
1. Soap: With the rise of youtube/facebook/myspace/twatter the Noise to signal ratio has gone way off the scale. Even shown logarithmically, the graph would cut off the paper and need to be inked on the wall.
2. Ballot: With a 2 party system and no run-off voting for most of the country, we really don't have a lot of options. The tea party is a great 3'rd party, seems to have some steam, but lets face it, they're going to vote R come general election time, just to make sure a D doesn't get into office. Their principles will let them be spoilers for primary's but not for general elections. (though it is interesting to note that where the tea party candidate get's the nod for the republican slot, the "favored" republican often runs as an independent.
3. Jury: In this day and age it amazes me that next to no one understands the proper role of a jury. Just because the judge tells you it's your job to determine the facts, does not make it so. The proper role of juries is to vote not guilty for anyone they think shouldn't be punished. If the law said being black was a crime, i imagine jury nullification MIGHT be better known then.
4. Ammo: I'm not calling for an armed revolution in this country, but with 50% of us not paying taxes and 10% of us not even American citizens, I sure won't be surprised when one breaks out. And it will probably start in a state like Arizona, maybe even Alaska. My big issue is, at 32, do i sit on the sidelines safe on my couch, or do I do the right thing and join the soldiers of freedom?
The problem is that we lack a national or even state leader capable of cutting through the bullshit to do the right thing.
"you know why? Because we got the bomb, thats why" -Dennis Leary
My problem with the cameras is they are a guilty until proven innocent item. Fighting bad tickets is simply not something I like to do on my days off or worse during my work. I've had two moving violations in my life. One was a bad speed radar ticket. It's not like I am the guy collecting tons of tickets. It won't take many automated screwups to get me to the point of endangering the operators of the highway bandits, especially when they are wrong or corrupt.
url:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7043325/Driver-parked-in-front-of-speed-camera-gets-tickets.html>
Several people fought an automated ticket with the GPS records. Radar said ticket. GPS with a base accuracy of 0.1mph said innocent. The proven false positives are way too common. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001248-38.html http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080712/NEWS/807120355 http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times/courier_times_news_details/article/28/2009/november/10/pa-man-using-gps-to-fight-speeding-ticket.html I carry a GPS and record the track as a regular activity if I have to drive through some parts of town. Most non technical people are unable to use this defense. In some cases, the court has rejected the evidence as they know too little about it. Can you say unfair trial?
One of our radio personalities got a red light camera ticket last winter during an ice storm. He literally slid through the intersection.
Due to these issues, I am simply marking red light cameras and frequent speed radar spots on my GPS as closed roads and use alternatives instead. I plan my routes to avoid them. Businesses in the area may suffer as a result. I don't know the business impact overall, but I avoid the areas.
The truth shall set you free!
Statistically, if you drive 10 miles an hour less than the speed limit you are more likely to be involved in an accident than if you drive 10 miles an hour above the speed limit (http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/).
Statistically, 2/3 of accidents occur within 6 miles of home, and are attributed to the of the so called "switch off" syndrome (http://www.churchill.com/pressReleases/13062005.htm)
Statistically, It is much safer on motorways travelling significantly faster than on country roads in the UK. Better road design is a much more significant factor than speed.
Statistically, the single worst cause of accidents at 35% is failing to look properly (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071)
If speeding was linked with accidents then I would completely agree, but the facts show that speeding motorists are *disproportionally* victimised. This is possible because the technology allows blanket enforcement. It might seem rational that speeding motorists should be punished, but statistically it does not make sense.
I'm really confused by your post
On one hand you challenge me to "Do some research and try to find accidents that were caused solely by speeding. I do not mean accidents where "speed was a factor" but the actual impact was caused by the at-fault driver failing to yield right of way"
Then you do the work for me:
"What my years in the auto insurance industry taught me were that two things are the primary cause of all the accidents and claim reports I saw: following too closely and failure to yield right of way."
The rest of your post seems to say that speed limits are rubbish and speeding in itself isn't dangerous ... that seems contradictory since the safe following distance is directly influenced by speed. I understand that you can follow too closely at any speed, but speed is a major component because it makes your reaction time far more detrimental. In fact, following too closely is about as close as you can get to an accident where speed is the cause instead of just a factor.
Anyway, I believe you can drive fast and responsibly, but I also understand the oppositions argument, which is two fold.
1) Speed turns an accident into a fatality. When you lower the speed limit there are more accidents but you are more likely to survive. Human life is priceless and trumps the damage
2) Speed variance creates danger. The greater the difference between the slowest moving car and the fastest moving car, the greater the danger. Since not everyone can safely travel at high speeds the speed limit must necessarily be lower. (think elderly, semi's, heavy vehicles vs sporty cars with excellent brakes driven by young people with excellent reflexes)
That's what speed cameras are for, to keep everyone compliant and going at the same speed, even when the speed limit is "unreasonably low." So it all works out nicely.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Actually we do have such signs posted along the I-17. I do admit, however, that I've never seen a keep-right sign on the 10 or any of the loops. I think I might have seen them on the 60, but I'm rarely on that stretch of road, so I can't confirm that.
I'm a PA driver. The way this works, at least during my morning and evening commutes, is that both lanes will be completely clogged with bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go traffic, and therefore the law becomes irrelevant.
Wrong question. Why are people driving dangerously?
No, it *is* the correct question. "Exceeding the posted limit" is not synonymous with "driving dangerously", and trying to pretend it is adds nothing to the discussion.
If a large proportion of drives are exceeding the speed limit, that is prima facie evidence that the limit is set too low.
I am also a citizen of Arizona.
I have noticed fewer incidents of dangerous driving since the cameras have been deployed, and I have become a safer driver since I need to check my speed every few miles.
This is all about an unrealistic sense of entitlement that some drivers feel to drive in an unsafe manner, and very little else.
More people WILL die as a result of the removal of speed cameras, and since you have worked to remove them, the blood WILL be on your hands.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
>>You obviously know a better set of people than those who drive near me
Oh, heh. I used to live in San Francisco, which has the very worst drivers I've seen outside of Italy.
I'm actually just repeating what traffic engineering uses as a rule of thumb - the 90% percentile of driver speeds is what is used to set speed limits.
Except on interstates. Those are set artificially low by statute, at least here in California. (They were designed for 75MPH, as I said. My grandfather was an engineer peripherally involved in the design and building of the interstates.) Other states are better or worse. Texas is with 55MPH-at-night on huge empty interstates in the middle of nowhere. Rigorously enforced by Texas Rangers who have nothing better to do than violently harass people driving a reasonable speed at night. Indianapolis, home of the most famous speedway? 55MPH all day long on its interstates. Etc., etc.
I'd vote for any party that would set a national speed limit on interstates to 75.
In Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic, he cites to several studies that support the premise that speed cameras do slow traffic and save lives. Speed cameras would make $0 if people didn't drive above the limits. In NYC, and probably many other places, they have in fact extended the yellow delay time because of aggressive drivers. I have nothing against speed cameras because I don't drive over the speed limit. The only people that lose out by putting up speed cameras are people that drive too fast.
[Missouri] I've had 2 of these camera tickets which CLEARLY SHOWED I had stopped for the red light, but the car next to me had gone through: I still had to pay them in order to appeal them (another $377.00 if I want to try THAT [and lose]). To hell with this BS cash cow.
Your attitude speaks volumes about our society, and the general attitude of 'whatever I can get away with'. This permeates the Internet community (where it has good and bad applications), the political arena, our financial markets, and virtually every part of American society.
Holy hypocrisy, batman ! You're the guy driving like a wanker, and you're complaining about other people having a "whatever I can get away with attitude". That takes a serious mental disconnect.
Let's get this clear, ok? the complaints I'm hearing are essentially that I am not accomodating the lawbreakers, and they are therefore left with the option of either endangering other drivers or submitting to the law.
No, the complaints are that you're driving badly.
Just as an exercise, if I should move over for a driver going 70, should I also do so for a driver going 75? 85? 135?
You should move over for anyone going faster than you. More accurately, if you're not actively overtaking, you shouldn't be in the left-hand lane in the first place and therefore not have to move over.
In most of the world, keep right (or left, for countries driving on the left) is the law (sadly, often poorly enforced). *Everywhere*, it's simply something you do if you're a good driver.
Aren't speed cameras common in the US? If not, it might explain all those 10+ car pile ups on freeways that always happen.
Over here (Australia), they take photos only when they detect you speeding. Do people see this as an invasion of privacy or something? If you don't break the law, you won't get photographed...
And 11 miles above the speed limit is very very lenient... I really think you guys should stop whining.
You might want to check what the Tea Party is up to.
It sounds to me like a combination of strong political backing and pissed off empowered people.
People tend to forget the fundamentals of 'good' and 'evil'.
Driving 61 in a 55 isn't evil. If you apply the fundamentals of good and evil, if there is no victim, there is no crime.
Putting the country closer to an Orwellian Big Brother with cameras monitoring our every move is evil, and we are all victims of that evil (being deprived of our Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)
The guy in the van forgot that. If he had been more focused on doing good than evil, he'd still be alive.
Funny thing is - he probably convinced himself that he was doing the 'right' thing, and was enthusiastic about doing it. Ditto the shooter.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
You know what, bravo to you! And any asshole who thinks he has a right to exceed to speed limit, much less to insist that you enable him in that, has no standing. They're the truly shitty drivers.
It was set to 55 for a number of reasons, not least of which was during the oil embargo in the 70s having everyone go 55 saved a LOT of gas.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The Tea Party looked like a good idea at first, but they lost my interest as soon as they hooked up with that nitwit Sarah Palin.
As for speeding, there is a case to be made that speeding is dangerous, not just to you, but to others on the road. However, what's really more dangerous is differing speeds. A road where everyone's driving within 5 mph of 100 mph is much safer than a road where most people are trying to drive 55 mph and a few morons are trying to drive 25 mph, and worse are getting in the left lanes. The problem with safety enforcement in this country is that they only enforce one thing: speed, and that's something that's completely arbitrary. They completely ignore very dangerous driving practices like tailgating, driving too slowly on the left, passing on the right (which frequently is necessitated by people driving too slowly on the left), reckless driving, road rage, not using signals, etc. Cops themselves NEVER use turn signals. So basically it appears that speed enforcement is nothing more than a revenue grab, and not for safety at all. Of course, we can't really know this without reading the minds of the politicians, but that is what the appearance is.
According to traffic engineers, speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile of what everyone drives if there's no speed limit, and people are allowed to drive whatever speed they're comfortable with. However, that's almost never how speed limits are set; they're set by politicians to maximize revenue.
work zones do have a lower speed limits. at least the ones hear do. but even with such postings and warnings of fines being dubbed for braking laws in a work zone cant stop that one asshole driver that speeds threw and kills a worker.
lower speeds where not set to reduce accidents on freeways. they started using lower speeds for fuel effcenty. a car going 65 will get to the same place a bit slower but will not use as much gas as a car going 85.
Speaking as someone who regularly drives in excess of 100 miles per hour legally (I race,) the answer to your question is yes in theory, and a definite 'maybe' in practice.
My experience has been that accidents are most common in situations of congestion, and situations where heavy lane changing occurs (such as intersections, and off-ramps.)
I've found that when drivers are permitted to drive as fast as they feel comfortable, everyone tends to focus on traffic, rather than becoming lost in distractions. If you combined training, with enforcement of rules of the road (such as lane usage, use of signals, passing, and merging rules) you could drastically increase the safe speed permitted on the freeway.
Of course, while these efforts will reduce the frequency of accidents, they will not reduce the severity of accidents. Significant improvements in roadway engineering could somewhat offset the increased impact forces associated with high speeds.
In practice, I think some of our infrastructure would support high speed travel, but that a huge cost would be associated with the engineering, enforcement, and training requirements of a significant high-speed roll-out.
Taking a couple of examples...
US 101 between Morgan Hill and San Jose can support relatively high speeds, and it's very common for traffic speeds to near, or even exceed 100 miles per hour (I'd place average speeds around 75MPH.) US101 between San Jose and San Francisco could not support that kind of speed, due to the traffic levels, road quality, ramp design, and the tendency for traffic to suddenly stop.
Of course, the unlimited speed sections of the German Autobahn are another great example of relatively safe high speed transportation.
In racing, the number one rule of safety is 'Be predictable.' The rule works. I race a 1993 Suzuki GS500 (~50 horsepower, top speed of 115,) and practice alongside modern liter-bikes (~180 horsepower, top speed nearing 180 MPH) Typically, the vast difference in speed down a straight is not a problem, because everyone understands that rule.
First and foremost, you should always drive defensively. That is to say, never assume the other driver or pedestrian is paying attention.
Speeding does raise the risk of an accident in many ways. Think of it as a co-contributor. For example, speeding in a school zone reduces your reaction time to bring the vehicle to a full stop. It also renders a vehicle out of control when hydroplaning. Going a bit faster can turn (what seems) used but deemed-safe tires into a pair of otherwise slicks at high speed through rain. Another issue happens to be people who speed during rush hour. It's even worse when everyone else around you is humming along at 80Mph with the traffic densely packed. All it takes is some monkey to tag a piece of debris on the freeway to cause a cascading multi-vehicle collision. After all, everyone's reaction time is now reduced.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's been about 6 years since I've been to Ohio. I didn't have any idea that they were considering changing the law. 65 is pretty good. I'm quite certain that the death toll has gone down now that the speed limit is the same for everyone. I'll have to check on it.
I grew up in Pennsylvania, where we had a whole lot of stupid laws. But, at least we didn't have that idiotic split speed law!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Being someone who used to work for the city of Phoenix I find this article funny. The city purchased these cameras with a monthly commission that was to be effectively payed by the speeders caught by said cameras. Since their initialized use, the speeding (at least near the cameras) has decreased significantly to the point where the city is losing money to maintain the cameras and are thus shutting them down.
Does any one remember the Oil Crisis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
This is where the 55 MPH speed limit came from. Studies showed that slowing down to 55 MPH WOULD decrease fuel consumption, and MIGHT save lives.
Seems that modern political idiots just focused on the 'saves the children' aspects of the 55 MPH law, without thinking it through.
55 does not appear to have any effect on rate of traffic accidents, or fatalities. What does change the rates is differential speed. 55 traffic mixed with 75 traffic would increase relative driver risk by about 30%.
Studies done in the 90's showed that signage and regulation reduced driver safety.
I wonder to what cause I would be most at risk? If I drive the double nickel in a speed-zone, I am more at risk for being shot by a road-rage drive-by, or being rear-ended by a 'slalom-racer' cruising through the pack at 70+? An that right-lane limit doesn't help much. If the median speed in the area is 65 the right lane will not be much slower than 65. So in this context, simple reason and self-preservation says, whip that hamster up to the flow of traffic, or your gonna die...
Here, where I live on a small island, we have several small trailers that are parked at the side of the road along various high risk areas. These trailers have a RADAR/LIDAR system linked to a large red LED display that shows your speed. There is also a large speed-limit sign posted next to the display. They are deployed here during tourist season. There is no ticketing system linked to it. It also a nifty way to check your speedometer calibration. The display is quite large too. This makes it visible to drivers further behind you. They see your speed as well. I am fairly sure that reduces anonymity for speeders, especially in a small community.
That's what speed cameras are for, to keep everyone compliant and going at the same speed...
The question is, why do you believe speed cameras keep everyone going at the same speed? There have been a few, very obviously unscientific studies of the data, but I've not seen a single reasonable study of the issue that claims that is the case. From my own personal observations, it seems to cause more rapid variation of speed as people slow down then speed up for cameras. So why would a reasonable person believe they reduce accidents?
That was informative and insightful. Thanks for weighing in.
It costs a lot more to to design cameras that can tell the difference between latino drivers (to be sent deportation notices) and nonlatino drivers (to be sent speeding tickets).
"Holy hypocrisy, batman ! You're the guy driving like a wanker"
I'm driving like most everyone else on the road. In fact, I'm not the only one in my lane driving the same speed.
Somehow, you've gotten the impression that I'm driving slowly in the left lane, all alone, with a string of vehicles behind me. Not so. I'm driving faster than MOST other vehicles. Yes. I'm aware of the traffic around me, and well aware of those that want to pass me. Most of the time, the lanes are full, and we're stuck there. When it opens up around halfway to work, not only do I get an opening on the right, but the most impatient drivers take that opening to pass me without waiting. And half the time they pound into the traffic in front of us, which is actually going slower - yes, the prevailing speed on the Pima freeway is not 65MPH between 6:00am and 7:00am. MOre like 60, and I can't see any reason why the right-hand lanes are so slow in so many places.
Take your wanker and stuff it. Maybe I haven't explained it, but I'm not driving slow. Just slower than 2 out of 100 drivers. My speed is usually in the 90th percentile.
For giggles, I'll be counting cars I pass vs cars that pass me on different stretches next week. We'll get some numbers for ya.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
One of the things that's always funny about speeding cameras is how legislators deal with them. Legislators:
Hate to feed the troll so late in the game - but on the off chance you weren't trolling.
The guy following you (not the jackass tailgaiting you, I'm talking about the guy who comes up and then follows you at a safe distance) in the left lane, steadfastly refusing to pass you on the right? He is following the rules of the Autobahn. Left lane is for passing. You've got an obligation to get out of it (that you're ignoring), and he's got an obligation not to pass you on the right (which he's following).
Wow. I've written some pretty big comments, but I've never been able to cram that much finger-pointing and self-promotion into one post, while still managing to ignore fundamental issues. As anyone who's dealt with me before knows, I love flamebait! Let's play.
the 24/7 video being shot by the camera van
...which wasn't designed or intended to follow people, or catch any details other than a license plate. Technology does what it's built to do, and nothing else.
...nefarious cameras were located right at 65 to 55 speed limit change locations...
The speed limit is a limit. It is legal to slow down in the 65 zone, but it's not legal to go faster in the 55 zone. It seems these camera are set up to catch people who are breaking the law. Nefarious, indeed.
30%...10%...13-18%
Got sources?
They installed the speed cameras in October 2008, right after the collapse of the economy.
...In a brilliantly calculated move probably arranged six months earlier or so. Now if it were arranged in mid-September, you might have a point, but I've never known anything in government to move that fast for such a little reason. Of course, this is all impossible to prove with no sources.
money makers
And where does the money go, exactly? Does it go to the legislature, or does it go to supporting the paramedics, cleanup crews, and legal costs of the victims who die from collisions with people who "generally drove safely"?
Thanks for playing! Next time, try to present yourself less as a political fanatic, and more as an intelligent individual with facts and references supporting their position. I like playing with flames, but I don't like wading through political detritus. Doing so doesn't inspire me to research your cause, nor to support your position.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
But how do those people on the ballot get put there? By another vote. If everyone would vote on THAT, then there might actually be some good candidates for positions.
Actually, while I agree with the majority of your post, I CAN think of one more place where speed limits are very useful, with the caveat that they're not useful all the time: I live in Denver, Colorado. We by far don't have the worst weather, I know, but our weather is variable enough, and can get bad enough, that road travel is seriously inhibited. Yet, if you must drive during these times, you'll find other people out on the highway doing 60 in the middle of a blizzard with a foot of snow on the road. I think that speed limits would be very useful on those roads DURING those times. They already have digital speed limit signs set up in places around Denver... what's to stop them from networking them and then slowing those limits for bad weather? Variable speed limits based on real time road information would be infinitely more helpful and safer than the set speed limits we have now, and I can't help feeling that if the speed limits were REALLY about safety, we'd be hearing more about ideas like this.
I know exactly what you mean about drivers who are reckless during bad weather. I have been stuck in second gear (i.e. 20-25 mph) going down what is normally a 45mph road before because of ice and snow, only to have people flying by me in their invincible SUVs. Apparently they don't realize that the purpose of four-wheel drive is to avoid getting stuck; it will not save you from hitting a sheet of ice at highway speeds. It won't prevent unwanted drift, oversteer, or understeer yet many people drive as though it will.
Unfortunately I don't believe that your idea will work. It'd be nice if it would but I have a good reason to doubt that.
You have observed that people will drive recklessly (excessive speed) during a blizzard with one foot of snow already on the ground. This overrides their instinct for self-preservation. You are suggesting that people who will not slow down for the sake of life-and-limb will slow down because a sign told them it's a good idea. I'd flat-out say this will not possibly work, except for one thing.
Thanks to the combined efforts of public schooling and mass media, many people will mindlessly obey a sign if it looks official enough. The bit of cynacism I have left tells me that they would do this before they'd exercise any sort of awareness or proactive evaluation of their situation, since those things require the independent, self-directed thought that they seem to find so painful. Still, the purpose of enforcing a "bad conditions" speed limit would not be to protect the reckless driver. Similar to why we sanction drunk drivers, the purpose would be to protect everyone else on the road from their poor decision-making.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
In reply to your confusion, I have an easy answer: my research that informed me is not a substitute for your own research that informs you. In other words, don't believe something just because I say it with confidence. Investigate it and see it for yourself. See if you come to the same conclusion. If you don't, I might just learn something. Not to mention, some people will mislead you and some of those will do it deliberately because they have an agenda. Maintaining your intellectual independence guards against all of these things and exercises a vital skill.
Therefore, I would say that I didn't do your work for you. I did my work for me and reported the results.
Speed limits are a way for the state to raise revenue while pretending to care about the welfare of its citizens. If that caring were genuine, they'd target the well-known, well-researched behaviors that cause far more accidents than speeding. The cops themselves either know that they are collection agents for the state and don't care about the dishonesty in which they participate (after all, lots of fringe benefits and a feeling of power come with that job), or they're what you'd call useful idiots.
You answered your own objection about following too closely. It can be done at any speed, as you said. That's why (at least in my state) rear-ender accidents are always, automatically the fault of the driver behind and rightfully so.
Personally, I drive in such a way that the guy in front of me can suddenly and without warning slam into an invisible reinforced brick wall and instantly decelerate to a full stop without me hitting him, at any speed. To do otherwise would be supremely irresponsible. It would mean allowing myself to succumb to a predictable eventuality. No responsible adult does that.
What do I mean by "predictable eventuality?" There are such things as deer, children, careless pedestrians, vehicles that run stop signs and red lights, and all sorts of other unpredictable hazards that might require someone to suddenly and unexpectedly stop the vehicle. If you are like most American adults, you drive on a daily basis and have done so for years. It is absolutely inevitable that you will eventually run into such a scenario. To be unprepared for it and surprised by it is to disregard the very real possibility of your negligence causing the death of either yourself or an innocent third party. I'd rather not die a useless death and I enjoy being able to sleep at night.
Just like gravity turns a non-trivial fall into a fatality. However, gravity did not cause anyone to fall. Losing their grip, losing their footing, or failing to use safety equipment caused them to fall. If you are
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
You're a massive douche.
If someone has enough room to pass you on the right, then that's what? At least 3 car lengths. You could have pulled across to let people pass, so they wouldn't have to 'swerve' around you. But you chose not to. Thus, you are douchey.
Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia are all posted at 70. Now if only people in those states could drive!
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The problem with road projects is that they are supported by public money and are therefore inefficient. As a result, a majority of "work zones" and "active work zones" you see are not active at all. Drivers then learn to ignore "active work zone" signs which are most likely misleading.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Regardless it's 61 people. It's not worth spending resources on. There are any number of things that the same resources would have a much greater effect on. For example the much larger pool of car accident victims.
I find being offended by me offensive.
the problem is that the guidelines dictate that the speed limits be posted at 85th percentile, since most people adjust their driving to the conditions of the road, weather, etc... however when you see a highway with a *temporarily* drop to 45mph, you know this is not the case. probably each one of us has a ton of specific examples showing this.
"Human life is priceless and trumps the damage"
Not really true.
people talk about how you can't put a price on life yet whole industries are based on it.
Insurance companies, hospitals etc.
They all at some point have to decide how much a year, 10 years or 100 extra or lost years of human life are worth.
But of course other people deciding how much your life is worth doesn't give a good feeling so lets try a thought experiment:
How many adults do you think would accept a 10% chance of death in exchange for a million bucks? (thereby valuing their own lives at 10 million)
How many people would accept an increase of one in 10000 chance of death over a few decades for 20 minutes of time on the road saved per week day?
I think a lot would since that's a real exchange for not just time but life- 20 minutes of life per day with my girlfriend is worth vastly more to me than 20 minutes spent in the rat race sitting in traffic.
Over the course of a year, a decade, a lifetime that time adds up and I'd happily accept a reasonably tiny increase in risk in exchange for less time spent sitting in traffic vs time spent doing things I enjoy.
We make such choices on a regular basis- that's why we don't walk everywhere wearing body armor with a backpack full of first aid gear, the time saved and the effort saved by not doing so is worth more to people than the increased risk of death.
Yuh. Well, I made some counts the past 3 days;
Monday - moderate traffic - passed 24 passed by 5. A faster day in the right lanes, 3 of 5 passers were BMWs:), one the Bentley that I'm pretty sure I've never seem moving less than 80... I'm not counting the hordes of 60mph'rs on the right of me, poor blighters.
Tuesday - lighter traffic - passed 12 passed by 8. 5 of the 8 passing me ripped by on a very light stretch, and were already in open lanes. Today, only 5 of 8 were BMWs. A pattern? Plenty of 60mph'rs safely in their right lanes, oblivious to the posted limit.
Wednesday - heavier traffic - passed 40+, passed by 12. One of the 12 passed me after tailgating me in the most congested spot, and then settled down in front of me and I ended up changing lanes to pass her 2 miles later after waiting for an opening. All but 2 passers were weaving and most gave me no chance to change lanes. Today, most of the passers were doing 80+ by my estimation, one a bit more, but I'm not sure I can gauge speed over 100 very well. We had a motorcycle officer on the HOV shoulder today that slowed traffic. He missed a solitaire.
Looking more carefully, I see in the morning that the prevailing speed in the right lanes is mostly 60 in a 65, until we get past Shea Blvd, and then it creeps up to 65, barely. Most of the fast movers seem to come onto the 101 in the Scottdale sections, around Thomas and Chapparall. And msot of the fast movers I see ripping by me are exiting within 5 miles. I go up past Hayden, so that makes sense, but the worst speeders seem to be getting off at FLW, how did I know that? In other words, it seems to be a specific office-dominated area that attracts the speeders. There are exceptions.
In the afternoon, I don't spend as much time in the left lane, as it is both slower (50-30 depending on accidents) and the traffic is generally at the same speed left to right. Even at 4pm, the afternoon commute is terrible.
I'm still going faster tha at least 85% of the rest of traffic, and I'm pushing over some others etc. And I think, since I'm on the road with thousands of other travellers, being passed by maybe a dozen drivers isn't keeping me up nights. And since not all of those even bother to wait until they are behind me (and 1/3 of those weren't even going to stay in front of me) I'm done with this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.