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."

Comments

Huh?

[Lumpy]

So they take them out because a unstable idiot that cant go the speed limit murders someone?

I personally think they are needed for specific places. Construction zones. Too many idiots go flying through construction zones putting construction works and other motorists in danger. maybe speed cameras all along the construction area will actually slow down those idiots.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Chrisq]

Yes that seems insane to me. Will they repeal the law against theft because someone might get shot preventing a robbery?

Re:Huh?

[rotide]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Dan667]

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?

Re:Huh?

[IBBoard]

speeding cameras are really about making money and do little to increase public safety.

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)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[je ne sais quoi]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Dan667]

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.

Re:Huh?

[compro01]

That depends entirely on if the speed limit is set with any regard to what a safe speed is for the area.

Re:Huh?

[bhtooefr]

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.)

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rotide]

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.

Re:Huh?

[je ne sais quoi]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Tackhead]

I personally think they are needed for specific places. Construction zones. Too many idiots go flying through construction zones putting construction works and other motorists in danger. maybe speed cameras all along the construction area will actually slow down those idiots.

...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.

...and by having tourists and inadvertent speeders drive blithely by the camera, wonder what the flash was, and keep going at whatever their original rate of speed was, blissfully unaware they were speeding until a ticket shows up in the mail.

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.

Re:Huh?

[rootofevil]

legislating against jackassery is impossible.

Re:Huh?

[JohnnyGTO]

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.

Re:Huh?

[plover]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rotide]

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.

Re:Huh?

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Huh?

[TheCarp]

> 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

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Sir_Lewk]

Yes! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

Re:Huh?

[jamesh]

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 :)

Re:Huh?

[plover]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

    Finally, someone is thinking of the children! ... rare thing on /.

Re:Huh?

[Afell001]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Sir_Lewk]

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?

Re:Huh?

[plover]

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.

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Nichotin]

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.

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Arcady13]

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.

Re:Huh?

[SharpFang]

...and you're not obligated to return the stolen property, just pay the fine of 70% of black market value of stolen wares...

Re:Huh?

[causality]

I personally think they are needed for specific places. Construction zones. Too many idiots go flying through construction zones putting construction works and other motorists in danger. maybe speed cameras all along the construction area will actually slow down those idiots.

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)...

a setback for those who argue that the cameras slow speeders, reduce accidents, and free up police for more serious matters

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.

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

Asking for cites is trolling now? No wonder there is so much bullshit here and so little truth.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[JasterBobaMereel]

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)

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[pantherace]

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.)

Re:Huh?

[gnasher719]

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.

Re:Huh?

[garynuman]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always try to find out how fast I can get before passing those signs...

Re:Huh?

[Spazztastic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[TheRealQuestor]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

I'm guessing he doesn't care.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[6Yankee]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Garble Snarky]

So would you approve of mounting weapons on the cameras? You know, for immediate negative feedback.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Hylandr]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

Then your fans are out in force today...

Gratz!

Re:Huh?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Zarf]

Nobody ever thinks of the chicken either.

Re:Huh?

[bsane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Registered Coward v2]

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.).

Re:Huh?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[tibman]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[sznupi]

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?...

Re:Huh?

[celle]

"...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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that speeds in a construction zone is a complete and utter idiot that needs to be beaten with a night stick. They are out and out TERRORISTS to the construction workers.

Only a major idiot or sociopath would disagree with that.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Huh?

[celle]

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.

Re:Huh?

[characterZer0]

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.

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[tibman]

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.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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!

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Lumpy]

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....

Re:Huh?

[causality]

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

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.

Re:Huh?

[sznupi]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

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

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[hypertex]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Citation, please?

Re:Huh?

[causality]

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.

Re:Huh?

[harl]

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.

Re:Huh?

[IBBoard]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

Oh yeah.

I drive the same 33 mile commute every day from Mesa to North Phoenix. Up to one highway, over to another, straight shot to my exit. Big woop.

I hang in the left lane doing the speed limit for several reasons; First, I'm tired of paying tickets. Second, I just want a smooth, cruise-control, stress-less commute. Third, I am not alone in this. Sadly, many people want to go just a little faster, and some want to go a LOT faster, and every once in a while someone gets terribly agitated that I'm 'only going the speed limit' in the left lane. Well, in Arizona, the law may or may not specify that you use the left-most lanes for passing or faster traffic, but NOBODY bothers to follow that. Speeders use any lane. Slower traffic, like the landscapers towing a trailer full of oleander or bouganvilla and going 59 in a 66 every day except Sunday, gladly hang in the left lane. Speeders use the HOV lane as a passing lane, all alone in their M3 or F-350. (There is no pleasure on on Earth quite like watching them pass an officer all alone in the HOV lane. This sends a tingle up my spine.) so if you think I'm oblivious to your pleas for me to GTFOOTW, you are wrong. I'm well aware of your presence on my bumper, gesturing, and generally being a dick. You are not late for anything because of me. You were late before you got in your car.

ps - In a perfect world, you would not be travelling faster than the lane to your right. You would be travelling at the same speed, save for the right-most lane where traffic enters and exits. If you're moving slower than the lane to your right, they are speeding. The concept of stepping aside and allowing illegal or dangerous behavior may be prudent in the immediate, but it is also the crux of the illegal immigration problem. This attitude is permeating our nation, and is not good. But it may be inevitable...

As an observation, I see three results of my driving behavior. One, whoever was trying to pass me generally pounds into slower traffic in a mile or so, and I'm on their bumper now. Congrats, you are now ahead of me... Two, they get off in a half mile or so. Niiice. You needed that 3 second advantage. Three, they blaze on in triumphant glory. Good for you. Oh, and the drivers that hang behind me for 12 miles... I do move over after 'the curve' to get ready to exit. Many a driver who had open road to pass me for most of the 12 miles will then acclerate and speed on. These people just want to be up against whoever is in front of them. Traffic engineers understand this. I don't.

When I first moved out here in 2005, the 101 Pima from the 202 to the 51 was a racetrack. People would drive 100+ any time of day or night. Accidents were common, and pretty spectacular. Then came the cameras in the Scottsadale section. Traffic over 100mph dried up. Today, 80+ is not too uncommon, but the accidents have lessened greatly. It could be that those speeders went elsewhere, but I doubt it. Cameras there improved safety and driving. The vans are another story. Everyone except me seems to need to slow down, as if the radar will flash you if you are going even 1 mph slower than the limit. This itself is dangerous, but tolerable. They've got one on the stretch of the 202 where construction is, where we regularly do 65 in a 55 construction zone. Jersey barriers on both sides. Feh. I speed there, it's just practical and there is NO work being done this week as the concrete cures. Well, three guys today on the other side. Even when men are working, they are safer there than the irrigation crews that have no signage and no cameras.

I hate the van cameras, but they work, and there is no excuse for speeding. Arizona is letting them go because they are not bringing in the revenue, and they can't change the program to properly serve sumnmons because the law is wrong and it is not profitable to do proper service. Sad. But the red light cameras and static speed cams stay. Good.

pps- My wife hates the cameras. They love her. She calls them 'paperaspeeides'. Ah, celebrity has its reward. Hers is traffic school.

Re:Huh?

[celle]

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.

Re:Huh?

[IBBoard]

What part of completing chores and commutes necessitates speeding?

Re:Huh?

[celle]

When the speed limits make sense then maybe it will be worth legislating them, hasn't happened yet.

Re:Huh?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[IBBoard]

People generally know better than the state what an appropriate speed limit is on a road.

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).

Re:Huh?

[DinDaddy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

Get yourself a bazooka and give those lazy DOT assholes something to fix. It worked for Michael Douglas.....

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

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.....

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Arcady13]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

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!!!

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

So your answer is that there's no need to improve the current ineffective systems because you like being a smug fucker?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Huh?

[danbert8]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rocketPack]

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.

Re:Huh?

[skydyr]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Dan667]

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.

Re:Huh?

[russotto]

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?

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.

Re:Huh?

[Dan667]

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.

Re:Huh?

[jdgeorge]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[mdielmann]

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.

Re:Huh?

[crackspackle]

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.

Re:Huh?

[russotto]

1) Noise ordinances

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.

2) Indecency laws

Totally unnecessary. Seeing even the ugliest person uncovered isn't going to hurt you.

3) Intoxication laws

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.

Re:Huh?

[MoeDrippins]

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.

Re:Huh?

[russotto]

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.

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)

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[not-my-real-name]

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.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

1) Noise ordinances

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.

2) Indecency 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.

3) Intoxication laws

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.

Re:Huh?

[blankinthefill]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

Exactly! I always loved this quote:

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.

Re:Huh?

[MagusSlurpy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Rick17JJ]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because the "good citizens of Arizona" are all fucking morons. 80% of them are down with legal racial profiling. They are exactly the stupid fuckers who voted those idiots into office in the first place becasue they agree with them. Seriously Arizona is one of the scariest places I have been as far as people's attitudes go.

Re:Huh?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

CHeck with your local DMV and police - there's a reason that insurance is expensive for road construction workers.

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Locke2005]

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.)

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

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.

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Spazztastic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Bryan3000000]

Crossing guards at school zones provide more safety than issuing a camera-ticket after the fact, AND are cheaper than installing and maintaining cameras.

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

Hey said "probably not." That is a speculation/opinion not a fact. No citation necessary.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Huh?

[sznupi]

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?)

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

Dude, wow, even though I disagree with you I certainly don't agree with whoever modded you Troll. How is that a troll?

Re:Huh?

[mdarksbane]

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.

Re:Huh?

[russotto]

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./blockquote.

Thank you Candide. All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Re:Huh?

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Huh?

[holmstar]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

I say, get the pedestrians off the freeway!!! (This is where the majority of the speed camera vans are)

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

We love you, Steve!!!

Re:Huh?

[cbiltcliffe]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Huh?

[aztracker1]

Maybe we should adopt Mexico's immigration policy?

Re:Huh?

[aztracker1]

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.

Re:Huh?

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:Huh?

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Huh?

[shutdown -p now]

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?

Re:Huh?

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[imunfair]

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?

Re:Huh?

[bjdevil66]

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

• "It's scary to drive without the cameras. People are crazy!"
• "The most dangerous thing a cop can do is a traffic stop. They get killed doing that some times!"
• "You never know who's out there..." (my personal favorite... the press does this one all the time - they tell you to watch out for your neighbor, and then tell your neighbor the same thing...
• "Do you want your kids to get killed by a speeder zooming past your school?"
• "If people would just slow down, accidents would drop - and you'd be safer."
• "Speeders are dangerous!"
• "Governments couldn't get away with dishonestly putting up cameras to just make money. Someone would stop them..."
• "People that hate the cameras just want to speed - period."

Typical selfishness/arrogance:

• "I like it slower on the roads. I go the speed limit in whatever lane I want because I'm GOING THE SPEED LIMIT."
• "Why can't everyone else just OBEY THE LAW? I do it..."
• "I can drive safer now. Oh - wait - hold on... I need to take this call... (slows down in whatever lane)" (proceeds to send text while driving or take that all important business call)
• "I don't speed, so I don't care."
• "If people are too stupid to see the "Photo Enforcement Zone" signs, then they deserve a ticket."
• "Who cares if people are making big money off of law enforcement. The state needs the money, and if it's a tax on someone else that pays for my kid's education, screw the speeders. Tell them to slow down like I do."

Any my personal favorite - anger/frustration/revenge/self righteous road rage

• "That son of a bitch just cut me off... We need cameras every 1/4 mile to catch these guys..."
• "I don't care! I just want someone or something to get even with that ahole that cut me off last week!"
• "The cameras will make those bastards pay. I'm tired of inconsiderate pricks weaving in and out of traffic, scaring me to death. Put them in jail until they rot! Revoke their licenses!"
• "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!"

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...

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[IndustrialComplex]

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.

Re:Huh?

[bjdevil66]

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.

Re:Huh?

[tibman]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re:Huh?

[gknoy]

Hey, if it significantly increases safety of workers, it's probably worth more than the life insurance costs...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Mister_Stoopid]

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.

Re:Huh?

[thefez]

Well those fellows got their profiling bill through - maybe they just didn't want to push the envelope into totalitarianism too quickly?

Re:Huh?

[gknoy]

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. :)

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

Huh?

Re:Huh?

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Huh?

[gknoy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[russotto]

If the constituency wanted the laws to be different, they'd like vote people into power who passed those kinds of laws.

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[BobMcD]

The exact sort noise ordinances encourage and enable.

So is, or is not, that ordinance doing what it was intended to do?

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

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.....

Re:Huh?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Huh?

[bjdevil66]

I haven't read a more eloquent version of, "Think of the CHILDREN!!", in a long time...

Re:Huh?

[Dare nMc]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[jayme0227]

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

Re:Huh?

[jayme0227]

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.

Re:Huh?

[sdguero]

Don't tread on me. Period.

Re:Huh?

[Hatta]

Just wait until that guy falls asleep from the boredom and plows into a few construction workers.

Re:Huh?

[Jake Griffin]

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).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did the grandparent advocate removing traffic lights?

Re:Huh?

[StikyPad]

...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.

Re:Huh?

[tibman]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Spazztastic]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[Sir_Lewk]

Or they might just do this.

Re:Huh?

[atamido]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Ichijo]

Several times now we've seen speed limits intentionally lowered in ways to make conditions less safe...

How can a lower speed limit make conditions less safe?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

tuck them away in the middle of residential neighborhoods

Not in my back yard!

Re:Huh?

[Ichijo]

being watched 24/7 in public is not the US that people want to live in.

It isn't 24/7. It's only when you're operating deadly machinery in the presence of others.

Re:Huh?

[Tarantulas]

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.

Re:Huh?

[TheCarp]

> 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

Re:Huh?

[mikestew]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Ichijo]

If you aren't driving faster than the lane to your right, then you should move over.

The law in Europe is the opposite: if you're driving faster than the lane to your left, then you have to move over.

Re:Huh?

[holmstar]

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. -

Re:Huh?

[AndrewNeo]

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..

Re:Huh?

[AndrewNeo]

The only time I've heard "percentile" used since taking statistics in high school was when looking at bandwidth costs for VPS hosting.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

may or may not specify? yeah, it does specify, and you're correct, no one follows it, including you apparently.

Re:Huh?

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[AndrewNeo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[b4upoo]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[00Sovereign]

West Virginia is 70 mph on Interstates. Pennsylvania is still 65 mph. Don't know about KY, IN, or MI.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

Traffic bunches up, less reaction time in case of a slowing or stoppage.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are really a shining example of how horribly under-educated the american public is.

Re:Huh?

[Ichijo]

How can a lower speed limit make conditions less safe?

Traffic bunches up, less reaction time in case of a slowing or stoppage.

That's only unsafe when someone is driving faster than is reasonable and prudent under the current conditions.

Re:Huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Re:Huh?

[mikestew]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Richy_T]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[holmstar]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Dare nMc]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[holmstar]

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.

Re:Huh?

[illumin8]

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.

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.

Re:Huh?

[holmstar]

sorry, typo. Meant to say "why don't you use them?"

Re:Huh?

[Arcady13]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[SleazyRidr]

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...

Re:Huh?

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Carnildo]

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?

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.

Re:Huh?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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. "

Re:Huh?

[SleazyRidr]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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...

Re:Huh?

[2PAIRofACES]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Huh?

[Ichijo]

" 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

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.

Re:Huh?

[Kehvarl]

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.

Re:Huh?

[flghtmstr1]

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.

Re:Huh?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

[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.

Re:Huh?

[drsmithy]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Glonoinha]

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.

Re:Huh?

[deathbird]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Greyfox]

North of Denver the limit goes up to 75mph. I'd swear that farther West it goes up to 85, but that may have changed in the past couple of years. Traffic along those stretches tends to top out around 70. Occasionally you still see some jackass who wants to go a lot faster, but they get pulled over very quickly.

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.

Re:Huh?

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Huh?

[luther349]

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.

Re:Huh?

[luther349]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Burning1]

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?

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.

Re:Huh?

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Runaway1956]

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!

Re:Huh?

[metaforest]

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...

Re:Huh?

[metaforest]

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.

Re:Huh?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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?

Re:Huh?

[Myopic]

That was informative and insightful. Thanks for weighing in.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[causality]

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.

Re:Huh?

[causality]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[danbert8]

Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia are all posted at 70. Now if only people in those states could drive!

Re:Huh?

[fulldecent]

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.

Re:Huh?

[harl]

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.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Huh?

[HungryHobo]

"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.

Re:Huh?

[rickb928]

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.

Good

[TheMeuge]

We're not the UK yet, we don't need this crap here.

Re:Good

[IBBoard]

You do realise that a) we're talking about speed cameras here and not CCTV and b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.

Re:Good

[Chrisq]

I actually prefer speed cameras to speed bumps, at least they don't damage the cars. In the UK they now have to be bright yellow and can't be hidden - this change has made me a lot happier about them.

Re:Good

[realsilly]

Apparently we do, it people are crazy enough to shoot a man in a traffic camera van.

Re:Good

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.

Ummm, no the VIN is what helped catch the guy in New York. And his own stupidity.

Re:Good

[moosesocks]

b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.

Ummm, no the VIN is what helped catch the guy in New York. And his own stupidity.

Nope. We still haven't found the guy they caught on camera, and the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.

Re:Good

[Chrisq]

You do realise that a) we're talking about speed cameras here and not CCTV and b) it was CCTV that helped capture the man behind the recent bomb attempt in New York by catching pictures of him, don't you? Guns wouldn't have helped in either of those situations.

The UK has 6,000 speed cameras. From daily mail:

Drivers were clobbered with 1.23million tickets in 2008, of which 1.03million were issued by speed cameras, the Home Office report revealed. The tickets raised more than £73million for the Treasury that year, or £200,000 a day. In total, 16million tickets have been issued since 1997, raising £913million.

Re:Good

[Speare]

I agree that the vehicle itself led them on a somewhat simple trail to find the guy.

However, what I found somewhat creepy was that they found CCTV of the same guy buying the fireworks in Pennsylvania, well over a month before the incident. Apparently, buying plain old 50mg firecrackers in PA requires a signature, an ID, and the video retention policy isn't just a week or less like most CCTV. Can they find video of your visit two months ago? Six months? How long before every Wal*Mart and ATM have a solid year of 30fps video for every camera?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't met many engineers have you? Book smart? Sure. Common sense? Nope.

Re:Good

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Given that the "bomb" was a laughable piece of junk, I think the "he's stupid" hypothesis holds up.

Re:Good

[tophermeyer]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.

Arrogance is probably a better hypothesis. There's been a great deal of research done into the psychology and motivations of terrorists. Generally they look at Americans and our law enforcement agencies with disdain and contempt. Likely assuming we are too stupid and lazy to catch them before they can leave the country (which in this case was frustratingly close to happening).

Plus, I know some engineers that couldn't engineer their way out of a broom closet. They could draw up a wonderfully detailed CAD representation, and could run some fantastic structural analysis of its building materials. But put some real tools and materials in their hands and they turn useless.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

He majored in software engineering and information systems, later on he completed his MBA. I am not sure how a business degree and a comp sci degree would help him assemble an effective explosive device. Much like I wouldn't expect you to provide the equations for a satellite launch, just because you took two semesters of engineering physics and are handy with a calculator.

People seem to have very high expectations when people major in engineering, as if every engineering major could design a death-ray out of a golf club and a light bulb.

Re:Good

[moosesocks]

You missed my point -- the best guesses are that he either didn't want the bomb to explode, he's being framed, or had some sort of psychotic breakdown.

Re:Good

[Abcd1234]

He majored in software engineering and information systems, later on he completed his MBA. I am not sure how a business degree and a comp sci degree would help him assemble an effective explosive device.

But... but... he's an "engineer"! Therefore, he's an expert in anything and everything! Seriously, are you new around here or something?

Re:Good

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

the guy we caught was an Engineer with a graduate degree that had no idea of how to build a bomb or avoid detection at even the most basic level. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I find it incredibly hard to accept the "he's stupid" hypothesis.

Okay so a guy with no real idea how to build a bomb builds a bomb that doesn't work. He has no idea how to avoid detection and is quickly identified and captured because he did not destroy the VIN number of the vehicle he used. I'm not sure I understand where you're seeing a disconnect that would lead you to think something is amiss with the "he's stupid" hypothesis.

Re:Good

[xaxa]

Sounds like the speeding idiots saved Daily Mail readers £73 million in tax. How can they disapprove?

Re:Good

[Myopic]

The CCTV resulted in reports of a "middle aged white male". The man arrested is a young, non-white male, and was found *despite* the *bad evidence* provided by the CCTV.

So, I just want to make sure we are on the same page here -- you readily acknowledge that the CCTV was ineffective?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

because they obviously lowered the tax to compensate right???

yeah.. that's what I thought.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that none of the NYPD street camera's actually got a picture of the guy. If you don't believe me, look it up. The street cameras had no use in helping to find the terrorist. This is a 1st case against camera's being usefull as we alerady have plenty that show they deteriorate personal privacy of law abiding citizens, which is what the terrorists want.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone calls another person stupid without any medical or psychological evidence, this someone becomes an imbecile the instant he expects others to accept his assertion. Anyone rushing to his defense is an even bigger imbecile. The onus is not on the public to disprove every statement you make. Quite the opposite, you dork.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The plural of "camera" is "cameras".

Re:Good

[Deosyne]

Why would they? The UK still operates at a deficit, so there's nothing to compensate. They're just less negative for fining those who endanger others on the road.

Re:Good

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

captured because he did not destroy the VIN number of the vehicle he used.
If the bomb had gone off then recovery of the VIN would have been severly hampered. Ie he would have be in the emirates by the time they pieced together the VIN. Instead the bomb failed and a fully intact vehicle w/ the VIN stamped in several places allowed for a quick discovery of the owner of the vehicle.

Re:Good

[AK Marc]

What does fining have to do with danger? If they are dangerous, they should be removed, not paying a danger tax and allowed to continue to endanger everyone. So every time I hear "danger" and "speed cameras" in the same topic, I assume the person speaking is a liar.

And you know that they reduce yellow lights to illegally short times at intersections with red light cameras, and a huge number of speed camera tickets are on roads with limits set below the optimal speeds as determined by engineering surveys? Like in NYC, where they set a statutory limit that's low, even on the highways, or Dallas where, though without cameras, set the roads illegally low and didn't change them until the paper there ran a story that said "If you get a ticket on I-35 or I-635, you can fight it and win because the limits are illegally set." Those who make the rules break them more than follow them and do so in order to harm people. So the more people involved and fewer machines, the more likely the rules will be followed.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK has 6,000 speed cameras. From daily mail:

Drivers were clobbered with 1.23million tickets in 2008, of which 1.03million were issued by speed cameras, the Home Office report revealed.

The tickets raised more than £73million for the Treasury that year, or £200,000 a day.

In total, 16million tickets have been issued since 1997, raising £913million.

Wow! Just think, all along I was under the impression that the point of those laws was to make the roads safer, not to generate revenue. And before anyone argues that the fines act as any sort of deterrent, I think we can safely say that the data shows the laws aren't working like that either... or else they wouldn't be generating any revenue.

How about you post up some data which shows what effect they have on reducing the number of violations, since that is indeed the ultimate goal of a law, yes?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the grandparent post is referring to the fact he has a graduate degree in Engineering as a counter-example to the "he's stupid" hypothesis.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, people. I LOVE the speed cameras! Actually, I love the goofy pictures the state sends me. Ya see, I drive a truck that is owned and registered solely in my wife's name. She drives a van that is owned and registered solely in my name. I get a picture of her with a form requesting I tell the state who she is as she's obviously not the male registered on the vehicle, and visa versa. We try to "out goof" the other in the pictures. We have fun with it and we're costing the state money. It's just like voting!

Why take them out?

[Pojut]

Why not repurpose them and put them on the border? You know, since Arizona is so into stopping illegals...

Re:Why take them out?

[SargentDU]

So are you implying that they should not have a secure border or not? Hard to read your comment.

Re:Why take them out?

[Pojut]

My point was that if they have no problem stopping people in the streets to demand they prove they are hear legally, why not repurpose cameras they have already paid for and put them on the border?

Re:Why take them out?

[Pojut]

Or...you know....here legally...not hear...wow, lol :-)

Re:Why take them out?

[Nesman64]

That would only catch the really fast ones.

Re:Why take them out?

[Pojut]

That would only catch the really fast ones.

What, you mean like this one?

Re:Why take them out?

[Ephemeriis]

So are you implying that they should not have a secure border or not? Hard to read your comment.

A secure border is one thing...

Stopping random people and asking to see their papers just because they look like they might be illegal is something else entirely.

Re:Why take them out?

[JohnnyGTO]

Come live here for a while, have your property stolen your wife assaulted in SCOTTSDALE of all places. They get a bus ride home I get a bill for $2500. Ya we need to stop all illegal activity at our boards, our highways our cities and suburbs. Its just to bad for the hard working law abiding workers that the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens. Bring back the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program and modify it to allow for other forms of work. They should have to follow the same rules and be monitored in the same way by US Immigration as I am!!

Re:Why take them out?

[demonlapin]

While I'm sympathetic to this critique of the Arizona law, what exactly would you have them do? Since the vast majority of the people doing the illegal immigration into Arizona are Hispanic, any method of reducing illegal immigration in Arizona will disproportionately fall on Hispanics. And legal Hispanic immigrants will be the vast majority of the false positives. If you want that not to be the case, your only option is not to enforce the law at all.

Re:Why take them out?

[Pojut]

Hey, don't get me wrong...I feel that Arizona as a State has a right to make any kind of law regarding immigration it wants. It's not my place nor anyone else who doesn't live there to tell you folks how to handle your problems.

It just means Arizona won't be getting any of tourist dollars, that's all.

Re:Why take them out?

[drinkypoo]

If AZ needs laws relating to immigration, they are the same ones we need in California: these laws would permit you to lock up anyone and everyone involved with hiring illegals to do any job, anywhere, any time. Then, they will need to be enforced. They are coming here because of economic opportunity. Give employers an incentive to actually check people's right to work status, and you'll see illegal immigration dry up overnight.

Personally, I still think the answer is to immediately deport any illegal convicted of any other crime, anything more serious than an infraction. I don't propose to deport people for jaywalking. Yes, this will be abused. Don't like it? Obtain citizenship. But we could argue about that all day.

I don't mind paying three bucks for a head of lettuce instead of $0.99. Please, hire some citizens to work the fields. Thank you.

Re:Why take them out?

[Duradin]

Actually, with all the fallout from Mexico becoming a failed state drifting over the border this law while probably increase tourism as it will appear someone is doing something to stem the tide of the invasion from Mexico.

This is supposed to be the Feds' job, someone is supposed to be doing this already.

Re:Why take them out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its just to[sic] bad for the hard working law abiding workers that the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens.

cite? I am certainly not in support of illegal immigration, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of crime anywhere, even Phoenix, El Paso, or Las Cruces (major border or near border cities) is attributed to illegal immigrants. According to http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html, "Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population." Keep in mind that this site is fully in support of action NOW to deal with this problem. As finding legally supported work is difficult (and a problem you appear to support solving), I am not surprised to see this statistic. But, at 20 million illegal immigrants (generous estimation), they are, at worst in parity with crimes committed by about 1/3 of the US population. Even in an area that is heavily saturated area like the above cities the percentage of the population here illegally would be hard pressed to exceed 20%. For Arizona, it is estimated that there are 500,000 illegals (http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=51473), where the population is estimated at 6.6 million (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state:04000&dl=en&hl=en&q=arizona+population), or about 8%.

While I feel a little pedantic spending all this time to correct your statement, and I don't mean to say that what happened to you and your wife is not a terrible occurrence, the reality is that I am tired of having groups who stand to benefit from an increase in border security make sensationalist claims like yours. Are illegals committing more than their share of crimes? Yes. Is the current system designed to force them to get legal authorization to work? Absolutely. Apparently it is easier to be a criminal than to jump through the appropriate legal hoops to get gainful employment. And I think that this is an indication of how poorly our current method is working.

Re:Why take them out?

[Ephemeriis]

The problem I have with the new law is that we've basically put racial profiling on the books. We're actually saying that if somebody looks illegal, you can stop them and ask to see their papers.

But what does a legal American citizen look like? We aren't all white. And not every illegal is going to be brown.

What it comes down to isn't whether you look illegal, because that doesn't actually have a look. It comes down to whether your skin is the right color.

Of course, beyond my ideological disagreements with the law, I have a hard time seeing any sane police officer actually using it.

Sure, if someone is already in custody for some reason it might be an additional charge to throw at them... But actually stopping someone on the street to demand proof of citizenship? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

How many of us actually carry proof of citizenship around? How many can produce it on short notice? Honestly, I'm not sure I even know what would constitute proof of citizenship.

So a police officer stops someone... Asks to see their papers... But they don't have papers because they're a legal citizen. Officer doesn't believe them, because they've got an accent or their skin is too dark. So they're taken into custody until they can come up with papers. Maybe it takes a day or two. Eventually they produce the papers, but they've been held in custody for a couple days simply because their skin was too dark or their accent was too thick. You just know it is going to happen eventually... And somebody is going to get sued.

As for actually stopping the illegal immigration and protecting our borders and whatnot... We need to treat the disease and not the symptoms. You can keep giving the patient morphine for the pain, but they'll still die if you don't treat the cancer.

There's a reason folks are sneaking across the border to work here in the US - it's profitable. Take away the profit and they won't have a reason to come here. Or, at least, they'll have one less reason.

We need to either decide that we're willing to pay higher prices to get stuff done without cheap illegal labor... Or we need to come up with a legal way to get that cheap labor.

Re:Why take them out?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I don't mind paying three bucks for a head of lettuce instead of $0.99.

Well I would because every analysis I have seen shows that the gathering of the lettuce (or whatever) is a relatively small part of the overall cost. All this attitude does is give the stores and excuse to raise prices three fold and use the "it costs more to pick" excuse. The market would probably exert the final force in the end, but still. The whole "$5 apple" scare tactic is just one of the many mantras of the ideological zombies.

Re:Why take them out?

[Qzukk]

Part of the problem in counting these things is that by being here they've committed a crime, by working they've committed a crime, and if they used fake papers to get that job, that's two or three more crimes right there.

Once you subtract out the crimes they committed just to be here, I suspect the vast majority of illegal immigrants fit into two categories: squeaky clean, or victimizing other illegal immigrants they know are too scared to call the cops.

Re:Why take them out?

[BobMcD]

How many of us actually carry proof of citizenship around? How many can produce it on short notice?

In my wallet at this very moment, and on a regular basis, I carry two forms of photo ID, one of them state-issued. To obtain the latter I had to prove identity, residency and citizenship. I also have my social security card, credit cards with my name on them, etc.

Likewise if I were visiting a foreign country, I'd be carrying my passport pretty much everywhere I went.

Officer doesn't believe them, because they've got an accent or their skin is too dark. So they're taken into custody until they can come up with papers. Maybe it takes a day or two.

Are there no electronic records to be searched? When I last crossed into Canada, the fine gentleman there had my information in a database. He asked me to verify my street address and everything. I'm also fairly certain that most squad card have laptops in them where they can look up a drivers license number, etc. Are you certain this is a real, rather than theoretical, issue for anyone here legally? I've not researched it, but it follows that if you have permission to be here, your name is on file somewhere in the computer.

Eventually they produce the papers, but they've been held in custody for a couple days simply because their skin was too dark or their accent was too thick. You just know it is going to happen eventually... And somebody is going to get sued.

This happens all the time to non-minority people as well, and very little comes out of it. You can legally be held on a whim for 24 hours with or without this law, and you'll have no legal leg to stand on for the lawsuit you desire. There are some very vague limitations, but I'm sure that if pressed there would be very little in defense of the average citizen against this power, white or otherwise.

As for actually stopping the illegal immigration and protecting our borders and whatnot... We need to treat the disease and not the symptoms. You can keep giving the patient morphine for the pain, but they'll still die if you don't treat the cancer.

There's a reason folks are sneaking across the border to work here in the US - it's profitable. Take away the profit and they won't have a reason to come here. Or, at least, they'll have one less reason.

We need to either decide that we're willing to pay higher prices to get stuff done without cheap illegal labor... Or we need to come up with a legal way to get that cheap labor.

You're absolutely correct here, but these things are aren't mutually exclusive. We can increase the cost of being here illegally by stepping up deportations while simultaneously decreasing incentives. Bear in mind, however, that the former can have immediate impact, while generations of the latter not being the case will probably take a LONG time to reverse. Even if they came here to starve, they'd still come because their parents and their parent's parents used to make good money that way.

Re:Why take them out?

[Anonymous Coward]

the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens ...is false. I am short of calling you a liar, but it is false. Look at the case law. Your statement spreads bigotry and ignorance and is not representative of the America that I fought for.

Re:Why take them out?

[jayme0227]

the majority of crime is associated with illegal aliens.

[Citation Needed]

From what I found, the majority of inmates in Arizona (90%), are not illegal immigrants. Nationwide, the number is closer to 95% non-illegals. Obviously the number of crimes committed does not necessarily equate to prison terms: aliens may be deported instead of put in prison, just by being here they are technically committing a crime, and its been shown that there is a strong correlation between wealth and being found "not guilty," but it definitely disputes your claim.

Now, there were plenty of "statistics" out there that were quite.. interesting. Most of them probably not worth the paper they were printed on. The information I'm listing is the least obviously biased study I could find from a quick search on Bing, although it still comes from an anti-immigration group.

http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/crimestudy.pdf?docID=2321

Re:Why take them out?

[Duradin]

You mean asking someone who is already lawfully detained on some other suspicion?

Read the law, they don't get to stop people for BWM and ask them for their papers. It is pretty clearly laid out in the law such that even the most incompetent civil rights lawyer could win if a cop pulled this.

Re:Why take them out?

[MartinSchou]

And obviously you would be completely fine with having your property stolen by US citizens and having your wife assaulted by US citizens, right?

It really doesn't matter who does the deed - you'll be traumatized no matter what. It's just a lot easier to point at the "evil" "immigrants", who might just be citizens. Just like it's easier to point at the "evil middle eastern Muslim" for being a terrorist, than it is to point at Timmothy McVeigh, who just happens to look like you and me. Or how about Joseph Stack? 53, white (excuse me, Caucasian), software engineer, wore glasses, grew up in Philadelphia, even played bass in a band.

Should we stop every single white guy between 25 and 55, check their papers, ask for their intentions etc., just because they happen to fit that particular profile?

Okay, those are terrorist and unlikely to target regular people.

How about these people. How many of them look like regular white people? How many of them would be stopped for looking 'suspicious'?

Re:Why take them out?

[demonlapin]

An Arizona driver's license is proof of legal residency in the US (which is what's needed - not proof of citizenship). There's the issue of reciprocity with other states, but I carry my driver's license with me any time I leave the neighborhood even if I'm not the one behind the wheel.

But what does a legal American citizen look like? We aren't all white. And not every illegal is going to be brown.

Well, that's very true. But Arizona isn't New York City. A black man in New York might be an illegal immigrant, but a black man in Arizona almost certainly isn't. As I said before, the problem is that there is a very large illegal Hispanic immigration problem in Arizona. Any solution will necessarily inconvenience legitimate Hispanic residents more than non-Hispanic ones, because they more closely resemble the target population (not just in color - they are more likely to be immigrants, speak with an accent, and have less money). This is unfortunate, but unavoidable if you're going to enforce the immigration law.

Re:Why take them out?

[atamido]

The post from Duradin above is correct. The law gives the police to ask for proof of citizenship only if the person is already detained for some reason. Note that a drivers license works as documentation, so there is no necessity for carrying a passport.

Also note that the law in question specifically prohibits the state, but instead requires that the federal government determine that a person is an illegal alien (something the federal government is legally required to do).

And finally, there are already a number of states with stop and identify statutes, as described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

I take issue with many stop and identify laws, but the bad press that Arizona has been getting is purely political.

Re:Why take them out?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did live there for 7 years from 2001 to 2008. Never had anything stolen. SCOTTSDALE of all places is full of drunk douchebags at the clubs driving home a wreck and not the Elysium that you think. Besides the fact that just because you are in Scottsdale doesn't mean you are any better than anyone else and above being assaulted.

You might want to get the meth addicts out of AZ first if you really want to reduce theft and violent crime.

I am not suggesting we turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. We should do as you say and setup programs that allow them to come here legally and be part of the solution.

Re:Why take them out?

[Richy_T]

But actually stopping someone on the street to demand proof of citizenship? That's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Kinda good that that's not in the law then, isn't it?

Re:Why take them out?

[ErikZ]

You're right. I hope you're not saying that anything like that is in the AZ bill, because it's not.

They modeled the bill after the unenforced Federal law. It's perfectly legal.

Re:Why take them out?

[JohnnyGTO]

Not worth a response.

Re:Why take them out?

[JohnnyGTO]

read the sentence, "ASSOCIATED with"

no way back

[TheMeuge]

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.

Re:no way back

[boxwood]

Yay lets all slide down the Slippery Slope!

Maybe we should ban all cameras everywhere. Make it illegal to own a camera because it is possible that someone someday may use it to violate someone's privacy. I mean if we allow cameras to exist its only a matter of time before they are recording our moves everywhere!

Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.

Re:no way back

[asukasoryu]

Maybe I'm naive, but is it such a big deal to have lots of traffic cameras to enforce speed limits? It sounds a little ridiculous to say we can't have traffic cameras because there exists a possibility that they will be used to create "Big Brother." Shouldn't we be able to implement traffic cameras without using them for unrelated surveillance?

In Taiwan, there are cameras everywhere (not for traffic purposes), their crime rates are very low, and Big Brother is not a concern. It seems like they prefer having someone looking over them in case a crime is committed. I'm not doing anything wrong so Big Brother can look all he wants to.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if you go look through the past few years of slashdot stories you'll note that indeed they are already doing that for 'national and commercial' monuments, and that quite frankly in a choice between nobody getting to photograph, and everybody getting to, most would go with the former, unless the latter included the private lives of our elected officials :)

Re:no way back

[TheMeuge]

That's not "Insightful" in any way. It's a gross straw-man argument.

Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.

That's another straw-man. I want to go faster I can now, given the limit, not because I am so eager to break the law, but because they are set too low, in order to generate more revenue for the state/city/municipality etc...

Re:no way back

[je ne sais quoi]

What a load of horse manure! You've got more to fear about "big brother watching you" from Arizona's immigration laws than from their speeding cameras.

Here's the proof. I got a ticket from one of those speeding cameras in the mail. I looked at the ticked and saw that they only had a partial image of the license plate and the vehicle didn't match mine. So, I called them up and told them that and they said, "Okay we'll take it off" and that was the end of it. There was no "big brother" involved, no court date, nothing. In fact, it was probably easier to disprove the ticket from the camera than if I police officer had given it to me since I could point to the photographic proof that the vehicle that was speeding wasn't me. It is not certain I would have been able to do that with a police officer.

Here's some advice: take off the tinfoil hat and go out for a walk in a park somewhere on a nice day. Buy some ice cream. Stop being afraid of things that don't exist. (Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught.)

Re:no way back

[TheMeuge]

(Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught.)

Except of course the camera had nothing to do with his apprehension.

But don't let facts ruin your ridiculous ad-hominem tirade.

Re:no way back

[drc003]

Once you have prove that this is what actually happens after you start allowing these types of monitoring is it actually a slippery slope argument? I think that Britain shows proof of exactly where this type of situation leads.

I'm thankful for Arizona citizens as a whole who obviously made their displeasure with this type of system clear and that it had an effect on the lawmakers.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free"
-- Ronald Reagan

Re:no way back

[sznupi]

If your freedom relies on, perceived by you (and seemingly valued), small hardships in tracking you...then you don't have much freedom to speak of anyway.

Re:no way back

[kilfarsnar]

Maybe I'm naive, but is it such a big deal to have lots of traffic cameras to enforce speed limits? It sounds a little ridiculous to say we can't have traffic cameras because there exists a possibility that they will be used to create "Big Brother." Shouldn't we be able to implement traffic cameras without using them for unrelated surveillance?

In Taiwan, there are cameras everywhere (not for traffic purposes), their crime rates are very low, and Big Brother is not a concern. It seems like they prefer having someone looking over them in case a crime is committed. I'm not doing anything wrong so Big Brother can look all he wants to.

Really? Define "wrong". Oh, that's right, it's not what you define as wrong, but what Big Brother defines as wrong that matters. Are you sure you'll always agree with him?

The problem with speed cameras is that they haven't been shown to reduce speeding. What they do do is cause traffic. People know where the cameras are, so they slow down just before the camera, and then speed up again when they pass it. Traffic bunches up around the camera, increasing the risk of accidents.

Re:no way back

[tibman]

What's wrong with speed cameras? They ensure everyone complies with the law. The camera part is only to identify your car and plate.. if they could use RFID or any other system, they would. The law has not changed with the addition of enforcement devices. That's not big brother at all man.

Re:no way back

[tibman]

My state recently pushed the highway speedlimit to 70mph. You should get yours to do the same.

Re:no way back

[tibman]

Shooting and killing a camera repair man is a bad way of showing displeasure.

Re:no way back

[BobMcD]

Dude, slippery slope arguments are stupid. You like to be able to go over the speed limit, and speed cameras make it difficult to do so. Just be honest and say that, don't make some stupid slippery slope argument about privacy.

Dude, you're getting a Dell. You're also wrong about 'slippery slope arguments' being automatically invalid. Just because you can put a handle on the mechanic, it isn't automatically disqualified in the really real world.

Take this classic slippery slope (and I've stolen this from another slashdotter, but can no longer find the original post):

1) You want to sleep with your coworker Janice.

2) She would refuse this at present, so you begin by establishing a rapport with her.

3) You find your personalities are compatible and begin working on a friendship.

4) Once she trusts you as a friend, you seek to become a confidant/ally/etc.

5) With this relationship established, you offer to begin dating and she accepts.

6) After several successful dates, conversations, etc, she finally agrees to sleep with you.

There are other ways to get to that last step, and there are many variations this path might take.

However, it can and does happen, every single day to every single one of us. Baby steps towards a goal exist, and speculating about possible negative outcomes really is a good opportunity to improve what you're trying to do.

Picture this step 4:

4) Janice's friend Sally, whom you've already slept with and dumped, tells her you're only looking to get into her pants.

Sally just made a 'slippery slope argument'. Was she wrong? Did it impact the outcome?

Re:no way back

[causality]

Once you have prove that this is what actually happens after you start allowing these types of monitoring is it actually a slippery slope argument?

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. You ask that question as though someone has misled you into believing that "slippery slope" is some kind of bad word. That it has been proven means it is a valid slippery slope. Does Slashdot not understand that "slippery slope" is emphatically NOT a logical fallacy? Has "slippery slope" become the new keyword to instantly end a debate with no burden of proof, sort of like "conspiracy theory"? Because slippery slopes are quite real, they do pose a danger, and are best dealt with in their early stages.

Besides, what is called "slippery slope" is merely the realization that few or no actions are the final last word. Rather, events tend to progress along a path. The path has a destination. It proceeds by a series of steps according to a philosophy. The destination of the path can be known by looking at the very first step if you're sharp. The very first step is never as threatening or as problematic as the destination. It's just the acknowledgement of what should be bleedin' obvious: that complex processes do not spring up overnight, but are brought about by a series of gradual changes. A free country's transformation to a surveillance society is such a complex process.

Rather than delve into this any further, I'll show just how simple this speed camera issue really is. If the citizens of a state don't want these speed cameras, it's because they are prepared to assume the risk (if any) posed by speeders who might have been stopped or deterred by them. They have that right. The burden of proof here lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone suggesting that the citizens of a state do not have the right to make such decisions or to elect representatives to make such decisions on their behalf. Yet no one opposing this wants to meet that burden of proof because they'd rather whine about semantics like "slippery slopes" in an attempt to discredit. What a limp-wristed way to make an argument!

Re:no way back

[Xest]

"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."

4,000 of the UK's speed cameras are Gatsos which are stationary, are not networked, do not monitor in real time, and are only trigged to take still images when they detect someone speeding. There's no real freedom issue here if you agree that it's acceptable to capture individual still images of people breaking the law as evidence for court and nothing else. The remaining speed cameras are mobile cameras, and so have police officers present with them anyway, so the only difference here is that the police are using automated tools to gather evidence rather than a separate speed gun and standard camera or something old fashioned like that.

I fully accept the UK has a surveillance problem, and that really stems back to the use of CCTV in UK cities, as well as ANPR at service stations, in some city centres, and on motorways, but again, this is irrelevant to the discussion of speed cameras.

The point is that you can fix the UK's surveillance society problem without ever removing or disabling a single speed camera because they're not part of the surveillance equation. I suspect the problem mostly stems from the fact people assume that speed cameras are permanently monitored or something, but that's simply not the case here. The issue with the UK's CCTV network is that it films everyone, innocent or criminal, all the time, it doesn't discriminate, but the speed cameras here don't do that, they can only catch people if they do actually break the law in front of the camera.

It's also worth pointing out that in the UK, by law, people have to be warned of upcoming speed cameras too. So even in this respect it's not as if they're used to catch people out of the blue, because you get warning that a speed camera is coming up somewhere ahead, so effectively not only do they catch speeding motorists, they have to also not be paying attention. The system isn't perfect, sometimes signs aren't put up for mobile cameras for example, but people have also had their speeding fines overturned when this isn't the case too, so the law works. In this respect they really do just do what they're designed to, they warn people not to speed in areas where they are placed (which are determined as dangerous areas by high incident rates etc.), and if people do ignore the warnings in such an area, and do speed, then they are caught on camera. I really struggle to have much hatred for this system, I'll admit myself I speed sometimes, but I'm not stupid enough to do it where it's dangerous, and especially not where there's a camera.

The issue is, nearly everyone speeds at some point or another, some just don't pay attention, get caught, and are angry they got caught, but you shouldn't really be driving if you can't pay attention to the road. That's most commonly the real reason there's backlash against speed cameras, not because they somehow infringe on any freedoms as again, breaking the law isn't a real freedom. I do agree sometimes speed cameras are put in stupid places, often for political reasons, and this is a problem, but again even then, only if you do actually break the speed limit- often the fundamental issue in these cases is not the camera itself, but the fact the speed limit in such an area is simply lower than it should be for people to drive safe, for example, long open roads with no activity near the sides of the road, but that are limited to 30mph - 40mph when 60mph would be perfectly safe. Sometimes even this can be explained though- i.e. the area is prone to flooding, or black ice, but because those are uncommon occurances, most people don't realise that's the reason, but to play it safe the speed limit is low for that reason, to avoid accidents when those events do in fact occur.

So yep, I suppose you could say I'm anti-surveillance state, but pro-speed camera, I do not believe the two things need be related quite frankly, and if they are, I believe it's the government for doing so that's the problem, not the cameras which have in fact been contributory in making a massive impact in decreasing road deaths and injuries in the UK.

Re:no way back

[dcollins]

"Unless of course you actually are a terrorist, in which case, I hope a camera catches you the same way the one in times square got caught."

You know the guy on camera had nothing to do with the attempted attack, right? He was just some innocent bystander taking his shirt off on a hot day, caught on camera, and thereafter imbroiled in an investigation which was wasting police time and inflaming the public as the actual terrorist almost got away? You know that, right?

But I suppose that's more support for your, "Nothing to worry about; all the cameras are misidentifying suspects" thesis.

Re:no way back

[celle]

So it has nothing to do with right/wrong but simple laziness, what a government.

Re:no way back

[asukasoryu]

Really? Define "wrong". Oh, that's right, it's not what you define as wrong, but what Big Brother defines as wrong that matters.

If there is more surveillance enforcing the laws we already follow, laws which we have "democratically" agreed on, then I am fine with it. I like to think the people set the laws and Big Brother enforces them. The existence of Big Brother should not alter the laws that are already established. If you're saying Big Brother will watch me and judge me by a different set of laws which are not set by the people, I think you're going a step too far. This is not V for Vendetta.

As far as the efficacy of traffic cameras, it's hard for me to accept that it's a bad thing for people to slow down and observe the speed limit. I think we, as a culture, need to change our mindset when it comes to driving. People should not exceed the speed limit. People slowing down should not cause accidents. Seems like too many people think they have the right to do whatever they want with no regard for others.

Re:no way back

[Qzukk]

What they do do is cause traffic

Schizophrenic road design that can't decide on the purpose of the road is what causes traffic.

What you describe is "driving the speed limit", which may or may not be set by insanity.

Re:no way back

[drc003]

"Arizona citizens as a whole" was not referring to one deranged lunatic.

Re:no way back

[misexistentialist]

It would be strange if the technology and acceptability of camera traffic enforcement were not linked to surveillance applications. At least in the US the transition to camera-tracking of license plates seems to have been smoothed by legislative and public familiarity with stop-light cameras.

You argue that freedom is not infringed by photographing criminals, but anti-speeding laws actually target pre-criminals. These aren't people who have caused accidents or even broken "reckless driving" statutes. If you really don't think this issue involves freedom, I suppose you would support cars that limit their own speed based on location, which would be a lot more effective than waging a terror campaign against motorists with cameras.

Re:no way back

[drc003]

I believe the way that he was trying to use slippery slope was incorrect and off-base as you're post clearly points out. Thanks.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait 'til the Ear finds out about our contentious conversations and connives to coerce a cop into calling. Then you will have the Finger after you. And not the nice Bitter Almond kind of Fingerman either.

Re:no way back

[tibman]

My mistake then, i thought you were applauding the killing of a public servant. It's good that the State is listening to the public and acting on it. Even if the speed cameras were to save lives, it's not up to the Gov to decide that.. but to listen to its people's wishes.

Re:no way back

[dwinks616]

Is it really that god-damn hard to just go the speed limit? All the time? I'm firmly in favor of progressive penalties for doing completely avoidable things while driving, such as speeding, being the 5th car in a row of people making a left turn on red. Sure, the first guy needs to clear the intersection, and maybe the second if it's a big intersection, but around here, you'll see people 3 or 4 cars behind the start of the intersection just follow the people in front of them through, well after the red and well after the other direction of traffic has a green. They already have a red light, they are already at a complete stop behind the start of the intersection, yet they decide to hit the gas, on a red, proceed into the intersection, on a red, all because what, they are more important than everyone else around them? They have a right to make people who now have a green wait on them? My suggestion: First time someone does stupid crap like this: standard fine Second time: 3x standard Third time: 10x and 3 month suspension Fourth time: 50x fine and 5 year suspension Fifth time: Permanent suspension Penalty for driving while under suspension: spending the duration of said suspension in jail, ie 3 months, 5 years, life. Again, this is a completely avoidable crime. It take a TON of WILLFUL decisions to have a car and get behind the wheel while you have a suspended license. Driving is a privilege and there is NO REASON AT ALL to not follow the few, simple rules.

Re:no way back

[causality]

I believe the way that he was trying to use slippery slope was incorrect and off-base as you're post clearly points out. Thanks.

So you won't be trying to explain why the citizens of a state should not be free to reject this measure and choose to take any additional risk this implies? Prediction fulfilled.

Re:no way back

[drc003]

Are you confusing me with someone else?. Where do you see me stating or even implying that citizens should not have this right? I am in agreement with you on the subject.

Re:no way back

[yurtinus]

The same folks in Arizona who allowed their government to demand proof of citizenship on a whim? At the moment I don't consider Arizona being particularly "freedom loving," and with any luck the November ballot will correct my assumptions...

Re:no way back

[Wyatt Earp]

What is wrong with speed cameras...

1. Its a for profit system - conflict of interest when private contractors are paid a commission based on the number of tickets they are able to issue. Pictures from the San Diego red light camera systems were ruled inadmissible as court evidence in September 2001. The judge said that the "total lack of oversight" and "method of compensation" made evidence from the cameras "so untrustworthy and unreliable that it should not be admitted".

2. Not accurate - Vibrations by heavy vehicles were found to cause the speed camera to record a false reading of passing cars and trucks by as much as 80 mph, according to the report.

3. Can violate the rights of the accused - In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the city government attempted to bypass the legal issue of a defendant's right to cross-examine his accuser, as well as the issue of verifying the driver's identity. Automated red-light and speeding offenses are classed as public nuisances and fined to the vehicle's registered owner as civil violations, not as criminal offenses.

4. Revenue stream and the laws are violated - At some intersections where red-light cameras have been installed, it has been determined that the duration of the yellow signal was illegally shortened. In Tennessee, 176 tickets ($8,800 in fines) were refunded to drivers caught in the first 0.9 seconds after the signal turned red when it was discovered that the length of the yellow signal timing had been reduced by that amount.

5. Privation of law enforcement - In some areas, red light enforcement cameras are installed and maintained by private firms such as Affiliated Computer Services, American Traffic Solutions, Inc, and Redflex Traffic Systems. In Texas, red light violators caught by a red light camera are served with a civil citation rather than a criminal citation.

Re:no way back

[Bryan3000000]

Let's give him them the actual facts about the camera's role so people can get educated.

A camera captured a picture of a guy taking off his shirt and glancing at the bomb-car. A totally innocent guy who glanced at a parked car. A complete red herring, one which fortunately appears not to have completely derailed the investigation. So at least they've learned that cameras aren't ALL that.

I actually heard somebody on NPR make the assertion that cameras still provide good evidence because eyewitnesses can be unreliable and the cameras could *exonerate* innocent people. Well, at least somebody has contemplated some type of good, however rare and unlikely, that could come from surveillance cameras. Some good arguments were also made, about cameras taking officers off the streets with their huge installation and maintenance expense and the need to watch hours of footage to try to obtain evidence which may or may not even be in a recording.

Re:no way back

[MartinSchou]

You know the guy on camera had nothing to do with the attempted attack, right? He was just some innocent bystander taking his shirt off on a hot day, caught on camera, and thereafter imbroiled in an investigation which was wasting police time and inflaming the public as the actual terrorist almost got away?

Hey, look on the bright side! If the actual culprit had gotten away, they would have nailed Mr. shirt for obstructing a police investigation - something that wouldn't have been possible without the video that led to the police being interested in him.

Some times you people are entirely too pessimistic to see the silver lining ...

Re:no way back

[IndustrialComplex]

A big reason for me:

It just isn't a way in which I want to live my life. There are so many ways that people can be nosy busybodies (Blue laws, obscenity laws, etc) that they could literally make my life a living hell if they had their way.

And for the most part, they DO get their way. There are countless little nuisance laws on the books that could nail you several times just going to the grocery store. The problem (advantage?) now, is that they are infeasible to implement and make profitable. The technical capacity to enforce these laws just isn't there yet, and as a result, we lead relatively peaceful lives.

But lets say you invent a new type of 'infringement catching camera'. It can pick up everything you do wrong as you drive to work. Did you not merge with 100' of separation? Did you drift slightly off the side of the road by 2 inches? Did you signal for at least 5 seconds before changing lanes?

You must now be completely cognizant of each and every law and rule every second of your life or *Flash* violation. Each momentary transgression on in our VERY complicated traffic laws will now result in a minor $10 citation. Except that unless you are perfect, you rack up 3-4 on each leg of your trip.

It degrades quality of life, and for what? So some politician can stand up and state that the metrics for this years crop of violations are up? That we covered that extra $3 million budget shortfall (And we didn't even need to balance it this year).

It's bad enough that our police force goes the easy route and focuses on the simple violations that are most often parameter violations (Metric A exceeded Boundary B) and ignore behavior that causes actual dangerous conditions.

Why don't they do that? Because it is hard, and sticking a camera in the ground and saying 'mission accomplished' is easy.

Re:no way back

[tibman]

Ok, i get where you're coming from now, the current implimentation of speed cameras isn't very good. But you aren't against speed monitoring devices and automated ticketing?

I think speed cameras and red-light cameras are different too. Red-light cameras are the douche ones it sounds like.

Re:no way back

[causality]

Are you confusing me with someone else?. Where do you see me stating or even implying that citizens should not have this right? I am in agreement with you on the subject.

Perhaps I did confuse you with someone else; my apologies. However, I disagree about one thing. The speeding cameras are a valid example of a slippery slope.

Speeding and most other traffic tickets are not so much about safety. If it were about safety and about punishing the behaviors that actually cause accidents, we would not have so many cops running radar to measure speed. Instead, they'd primarily look for people who follow too closely and who fail to yield right of way.

As a secondary concern cops would look for people who perform a "rolling roadblock" in the passing lane or who go significantly below the speed limit in good conditions and impede traffic. Both of those behaviors create hazards for other drivers and tempt impatient drivers to perform dangerous maneuvers to get around them. I realize drivers should not get impatient like this, but I deal in truth. The truth or the reality is that right or wrong, if you make something tempting enough, people WILL do it. You are better off addressing the careless, unnecessary, inconsiderate beahviors that create these temptations if safety and prevention is your goal.

Exceeding the speed limit would be a very distant tertiary concern, if safety were the actual purpose.

The reason you want a human police officer instead of a camera is that it is undesirable and unhealthy for society to automate this revenue-generation process in the name of safety. If that works and fulfills their goal of revenue generation by means of tickets, you can expect the use of cameras to expand for the same reason you can expect a corporation to put more resources into activities that make profit. Cameras don't sleep, don't take days off, can be mass-produced, and are quite cheap when compared to the budget available to a state government. That's why this is a slippery slope. Look at Britian sometime -- their use of cameras started small, but didn't stay that way. This pattern happens so frequently it should be the default position, with the burden of proof on anyone who says "this situation is an exception".

Human cops have one big advantage here. They are a finite resource that comes at a significant cost to the state. This compels the state to strike a balance between overreacting to trivial administrative violations and having enough manpower available to deal with real problems like violent criminals. The cameras are an attempt to have it both ways and no one really benefits from it.

Re:no way back

[Wyatt Earp]

I'm totally against speed monitoring devices and automated ticketing.

A human needs to be in the loop and witness the speeding or other violation in person.

Sure they can use a LIDAR or RADAR but they need to be there.

Me, I've sped and I've been caught - when I was 18 I got dinged for 55 mph over the limit. Another time I got a verbal warning for going 121 mph.

I was speeding and I deserved it, but there was a human there to make the judgement call.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't people who have caused accidents or even broken "reckless driving" statutes.

Now that's something I'd love to see. Reckless driving cameras. I've never seen an accident caused by speed. Sure they can be worse due to speed, but it's always lazy, stupid, aggressive, ignorant or some of other form of reckless driving. Speed always gets enforced, because they can document the speed very well, but I'd really like to see everyone using turn signals and yielding as required by law. We could probably drive a lot faster safely then.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Arizonian, I support the speed cameras. They are only triggered if you are going about 10+mph over the speed limit. The area where your speed is being measured is also always clearly marked by bright yellow "Photo Enforcement Area" signs. Arizona is also having a huge budget crisis and the cameras bring in much needed money. Now Arizona also has to decide what to do with the cameras. We can leave them up, or spend even more money to take them down. I have only ever been flashed by the cameras once, and it did not result in a ticket. The cameras are only really a problem for you if you feel the need to endanger the drivers around you.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

You have no privacy when you are driving on a public road. The police can search your car with only probably cause--they do not need a warrant. If you do not like this, stay on private property.

Re:no way back

[Richy_T]

Indeed. "Slippery slope" is the new "racism" in terms of attempting to perfunctorily end arguments. Using it is basically an ad hominem which *is* a logical fallacy.

Re:no way back

[Anonymous Coward]

Arizona used to have more issues with speed limits than we currently do... They fluctuated.

You'd go for a few miles at 55 and then a few more at 65. Then there'd be a construction zone and you're back at 55. This last time when they setup the speed cameras there was a lot of effort put in to make speed limits more consistent and the signs clearer. Warning signs were put up about half a mile or more from the cameras themselves, and the cameras that were placed in tricky places like freeway merges or exits were removed. I actually think the speed cameras will have a net positive effect because of the work put in place to make them acceptable will remain after they are gone...

Of course, on I10 near central people still drive 55 across all of the lanes despite the speed limit being 65 so I'm not sure raising our limits to 70 would really matter.

Re:no way back

[Chess Piece Face]

"at least some of the U.S. still values their freedom"

Freedom to... break the law by speeding? Or did you mean privacy... on a publicly owned roadway? Being in your privately owned car does not change the fact that you are on public property and _everybody_ has the freedom to take your picture. You are also not invisible, so please get your finger out of your nose.

I don't understand the difference between a store camera catching a shoplifter who is then punished by the government or a roadside camera catching a speeder who then is punished the same way. Would you have all the cameras in the banks removed? Of course not. When I ride the bus or light rail I know there are cameras on board and that's fine by me because I've seen criminals brought to justice as a result.

Being an observant passenger/pedestrian also shows me that owning a car turns a lot of people in to assholes with a raging sense of entitlement. Being in a car with those people is even worse. I've discovered that most road rage is self-inflicted anger that the rest of the world isn't driving the way they want them to. Cars make people selfish and stressed out. Take down all the cameras and drivers will find something else to lash out at.

Re:no way back

[causality]

Indeed. "Slippery slope" is the new "racism" in terms of attempting to perfunctorily end arguments. Using it is basically an ad hominem which *is* a logical fallacy.

I'd say that such weak techniques ("indications of weakness" might be a better term) are merely the result of an inability to separate emotion from reason during discussion. I'd like to think it's that simple.

Unfortunately, there is a distinctive pattern. The "demonized word" is always or nearly always a description of the increasing accumulation and centralization of political power. That's how this dismissive technique tends to be used; that is, against anyone who disagrees with the expansion of power, the homogenization of society, or the false concept of deriving one's notion of self from a predefined group identity.

I don't generally see these weak, dismissive techniques used against anyone who is pro-government, pro-corporation, or anti-individual. It's as though those positions are exempt from demagoguery. The consistency of this pattern is such that I am forced to believe it is not accidental. I'll tell you what I think it is: it's Newspeak.

Re:no way back

[Xest]

"It would be strange if the technology and acceptability of camera traffic enforcement were not linked to surveillance applications."

Possibly, but not in the way being suggested. Most people hate speed cameras, and so if anything, surveillance technology actually suffers negatively through being associated with speed cameras. In this respect, they make people hate cameras, because even though speed cameras are far less harmful to freedom, people associate the negativity cameras cause when they get caught with surveillance.

"anti-speeding laws actually target pre-criminals. These aren't people who have caused accidents or even broken "reckless driving" statutes. If you really don't think this issue involves freedom" ...and we should drop anti-stalking laws, because they target pre-criminals who haven't actually murdered or raped anyone yet, right? Obviously, following this logic, there should be a freedom to stalk people, and stalking laws are a freedom issue. Sorry, but these laws don't target pre-criminals, they target criminals because both of these things are against the law. Don't like the law? seek to get that changed and make the likes of stalking and speeding legal, don't pretend breaking the law isn't actually breaking the law though because obviously that's a logical fallacy.

Why would I support cars that can limit their speed in specific areas? this certainly does require a constant surveillance network, it's far worse than speed cameras, which only take photos of people actually breaking the law. That's far better and protects freedom far more than everyone's position being tracked, whilst still being effective in cutting dangerous driving and saving lives.

Re:no way back

[misexistentialist]

It does seem to me that some laws like stalking and speeding were never intended to be fully enforced. Police and judges not to mention citizens are supposed to exercise some discretion. Laws need to be written precisely to prevent dangerous criminals from slipping away at trial, but there also needs to be some room to ignore harmless violations, which really can't be written into the law. Once you have mechanical sensors enforcing laws, the laws become despotic. It would be less so if the sensors just controlled everything since they demand absolute compliance. Maybe you could implement a warning system with buffer zones, but law enforcement always has an incentive to collect fines and appear "tough on crime".

Re:no way back

[Xest]

I'm not sure you understand how the system works in the UK as it basically works how you seem to think it should.

The camera doesn't automatically send off a letter demanding payment of a speeding fine and issuing points, the film is collected by the police who then choose whether to issue a speeding fine. Just as with any notice of offence from the police you can choose to either pay it, or challenge it in court, in this respect it's no different from if the police issue you a warning or similar for dangerous driving and no camera or anything is involved.

Some speeding fines have in fact been overturned in court if there was good reason, for example if you believe your life is in danger as someone dangerous is chasing you and you can prove such then a court will overturn the fine.

So there are cases where mitigating circumstances come into play, and speed cameras don't change that but there has to be good reason. Collecting fines in the case of speed cameras isn't just about appearing tough on crime, when an area has 5 car accidents a year, has a speed camera installed, and that drops to 0 accidents a year, it's hard to suggest that it wasn't the camera helping make the roads safer. These are the sort of statistics we seen in the UK from a lot of cameras- a massive decrease in traffic accidents and hence a decrease in the resulting injuries/deaths when cameras are used.

primate problems

[DynamoJoe]

It's because of all those monkey drivers.

Re:Good?

[cc1984_]

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.

Hypocritical?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hypocritical?

[ProdigyPuNk]

Almost everyone can admit to speeding at times. Not many can say the same thing about being in the country illegally.

Re:Hypocritical?

[bigdavex]

Almost everyone can admit to speeding at times. Not many can say the same thing about being in the country illegally.

If they'd learn English they could. ;-)

Re:Good?

[TheMeuge]

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.

Too Bad

[antirelic]

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.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Public backlash against onerous revenue-generating speed limits will never happen, because the targeted revenue stream typically aren't represented by the jurisdictions which set artificially-low speed limits. The majority of speeding tickets are exacted by small burgs as a measure to extract toll from outsiders passing through.

Re:Too Bad

[antirelic]

While the small burgs may enforce the speed limits, it is generally the state DMV that assigns a road its speed limit. Local jurisdictions take advantage of poorly assigned speed limits to raise funds for the local coffers. If these speed limits were raised to reasonable limits, then strict enforcement would be justified for public safety as opposed to public revenue.

Re:Too Bad

[BobMcD]

Public backlash against onerous revenue-generating speed limits will never happen, because the targeted revenue stream typically aren't represented by the jurisdictions which set artificially-low speed limits. The majority of speeding tickets are exacted by small burgs as a measure to extract toll from outsiders passing through.

I suppose the obvious solution, then, is to make these kinds of violations carry prison time, rather than fines.

This would rather neatly eliminate the cash incentive and would likewise impose a disincentive via legal and incarceration expenses.

Or you could, you know, just drive the limit.

Whichever works is fine with me!

Re:Too Bad

[antirelic]

I have no problem obeying the speed limit. I have a problem with speed limits that do not make sense, and are exploited by law enforcement in order to dish out tickets to ordinarily average law abiding citizens. Its not the fault of law enforcement. Its the fault of legislators and bureaucrats that exploit these obvious poorly placed speed limits. The real problem is that these types of laws (which are directly enforced by law enforcement officers) should be to promote the public good and protect the public safety. Cops are not tax collectors, and turning them into such undermines public confidence, dilutes the authority of law enforcement officials, creates an adversarial stance between citizen and government, and strains the public services provided by emergency service providers.

When governments starts using public safety laws to supplement out of control spending, you begin to descend down a slippery slope.

Re:Too Bad

[clong83]

I do hate selective enforcement. I used to have a red sports car, and I got pulled over all the time, even if I wasn't doing much wrong. (i.e., I had a couple tickets for going 2 mph over the limit). I bought a big plain truck in '04 and haven't had a ticket in 6 years.

I hated those cameras at first driving around Phoenix, but I actually have changed my attitude towards them recently. They don't snap your picture unless your going at least 7-10 mph over the limit. The drive around town during non-rush hour traffic is somehow more sane now, with fewer people passing on the right at 90 mph, and somehow I have managed to not get any tickets from these things. Most people have also figured out how to avoid tickets from them. You just drive the speed limit or maybe five over and no problems...

There are a couple of them that are pretty shameless speed traps, and I don't agree with that, but by and large, I don't think they are so bad if used properly. If there is a really huge outrage over a couple of them, then maybe the speed limits are too low and should be adjusted...

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, perhaps, some of the programs that the states and cities fund could be... removed.

Re:Too Bad

[Sarten-X]

I have a problem with speed limits that do not make sense, and are exploited by law enforcement in order to dish out tickets to ordinarily average law abiding citizens.

In my town a reduced limit recently went into effect on a stretch of straight road going down a hill. It's impossible to slow down enough without using brakes. Police sit at the bottom of the hill, and it's enforced heavily. I routinely hear people complaining about the new limit, and brand it as the result of a greedy police force.

What's rarely mentioned is that there's several small roads along that hill, a history of a half-dozen deaths each year, and a long distance with "reduced speed ahead" signs. Just because the limit doesn't make sense to an "average" citizen, doesn't mean it's senseless to someone who goes to city meetings and pays attention to what's going on.

(pluOs o8e Informative)

[Anonymous Coward]

and that the fllor antibacterial soap.

Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[guruevi]

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

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding cameras also don't racial profile. It could be that they caught too many white people speeding, or smuggling immigrants, into the country. Arizona is all about prosecuting immigrants and enforcing federal laws, not keeping the local community safe by enforcing the small laws that keeps order. Laws such as stopping at red lights, so that a child will have some possibility of his parent not being killed by a driving moving like a bat out of hell. I will stipulate that every one of the 500 or so murders committed in Arizona is the fault of an undocumented person, but I bet some of the 1000 or so auto related deaths is caused by a white non-hispanic citizen, and it would be a shame to put a white person in a jail cell that would be better filled by a hispanic immigrant.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[MagicM]

I think the link you referenced may say more about British people than it does about speeding cameras.

There are other sources citing studies that claim things like "A well-placed speed camera saves one life a week."

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's incredibly rare for anyone to vandalise a camera.
I spend most of my time driving around the UK and I have never seen a vandalised camera.

Anyway, you should not be worried about radar type speed cameras. The insidious type is the "average speed camera".
These are linked in with the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system database, and work by calculating your average speed between two points. By doing this they effectively track the movements and location of every car in the country.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[guruevi]

I read the link you provided (in Dutch) and there is one problem with it: It tries to correlate 2 studies based on a single piece of data. The Dutch study shows that when the speed is lower when an accident occurs, the chance of a death is less likely. The Belgian study shows that the camera reduces the average speed of the drivers. That does not mean that because of the camera, there are less deadly accidents on that stretch of road.

To make such a conclusion correct, they should've measured the number of accidents before and after the camera. IF before the camera, on average 2 people die on that stretch of road (~10km) EVERY week (there are not that many accident's in the middle of nowhere) and after the camera's were placed now there is only 1 death per week, you could say that the camera reduces the death toll.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Ichijo]

If anything they contribute to accidents and traffic problems since speeders will slam on their brakes when they see one.

How does the accident happen? Does the speeder get rear-ended? Who tailgates a speeder?

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I'd much rather drive on a freeway/busy road in a similar sized city in Australia compared to one in the US, simply because people tend to stick to similar speeds (the limit +- 10) - the traffic flows much better and you don't have to deal with aggressive self-entitled jackarses riding your bumper, overtaking on the wrong side (ie. on your right in the US), weaving around and generally disrupting the flow of traffic.

Its obviously hard to attribute the smoother flowing traffic solely to speed cameras, but it's a reasonable explanation.

It's certainly rather uncommon for speeders to slam on their brakes when they see them anyway - it's certainly not something that happens with any regularity and the notion that this effect is strong enough to counteract the obvious improvement in safety from reduced speeds (the difference in stopping distance and therefore the required reaction time to avert an accident makes a huge difference between something being a close call and being a major accident) is rather far fetched.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[DigitAl56K]

No, it's incredibly rare for anyone to vandalise a camera.
I spend most of my time driving around the UK and I have never seen a vandalised camera.

Maybe it is incredibly profitable to repair them quickly?

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Richy_T]

I think the link you referenced may say more about British people than it does about speeding cameras.

Yeah, it says there's hope for my mother-country yet.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[gnasher719]

How does the accident happen? Does the speeder get rear-ended? Who tailgates a speeder?

On one long stretch that I drive daily there is a speed limit of 50 mph. Everyone drives around 50 to 55 mph, traffic permitting, with the exception of a few idiots who go much faster or slower. The problem is that lots of people have a TomTom with location of traffic cameras, and the idiots suddenly slow down to 40 mph. You actually need one of those devices yourself if you don't know the street, not to find out where you might get a speeding ticket, but where to expect drivers to slow down without any visible reason.

And who is talking about tailgating? Typical event: Speeder overtakes you, switches lanes so he is in front of you, spots camera, hits the brakes slowing down well beyond the speed limit and therefore well beyond your speed.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Hurricane78]

Hey, I bet you could seriously fuck up their speed recognition algorithm, by having two cars (or just car fronts) that look similar enough to fool the algorithm. If you can make the first measurement show the first car close, and the second still far away, and you do it, so that those are the only two data points, you could make the system show insane negative speeds. Like -5000 mph. ^^

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

The shape of the car does not matter, it only looks at the number plates. When another camera sees the same plates much further down the road, it knows on average how fast you were going.

Tailgating a lorry might work, as long as the cameras only point one way. The system requires high resolution video cameras with a fast shutter speed for clear images. Some I think use an infra red flash, so perhaps a number plate that was unreadable in ir would work.

I'm sure the opportunities for surveillance were only discovered long after they put this enormously expensive speed trap into operation.

Re:Speeding camera's are all about revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

The particular cameras in this article were vandalized several times over the first couple of months after being put up.

Reconfigure them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they can reconfigure them to look for brown people... That seems to be in vogue there, lately.

Re:Good?

[jargon82]

Or maybe we do, in conjunction with raised speed limits on roads where such things are suitable. That would make me happy.

If they really want to improve public safety...

[AnonymousClown]

How about going after tail gators and other aggressive driving habits?

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.

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[drinkypoo]

We have the same problem here in California, huge numbers of elderly or even just middle-aged tourists too incompetent to handle driving in the right lane where someone merges occasionally. Most of them are from OR, NV or WA, but that's just because most of our visitors come from there. Sadly, we actually have a state law against driving in the passing lane when you are holding someone up regardless of speed and speed limit, but it is essentially never enforced. I've actually watched cars hold up cops in the left lane, doing less than the speed limit, on numerous occasions. Easy money — but they don't pull them over. I don't know why, but I find it incredibly frustrating; they ignore people making lane changes without signals and clogging up the left lane, but you can get a ticket for doing a speed which is under the average speed in a safe speed survey... if they don't like the look of you.

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[BobMcD]

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.

While I'm not yet a snow bird, I'll admit I prefer to do this, too. The GPS is bearing down with 'keep left', 'keep left', 'keep left', and I do so.

Also I rather assume the actual design of the left lane is for those who have no intention of exiting any time soon, rather than for use by those wishing to speed. At least on a multi-lane interstate anyway. It could well be that the snow birds have it right.

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Indeed. You will be much less danger at 80mph in a straight line on an open road than you will at 60 when you're half a car length from the car in front of you. Did you ever notice how people like to tailgate even when there's a perfectly empty lane next to them? As if the driver they're mowing down is suddenly - after five minutes of this - going to suddenly say "Oh gosh, maybe this nice gentleman wants to go faster than I am?"

The thing about in-person cops is that they generally realize this. You usually don't see the person tooling along at 80mph with plenty of following room getting pulled over unless a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...) When you make it automated, that judgment goes away -- and you get a nice revenue spike, but you do very little to actually make the roads safer.

As far as driving consistent speeds: if you want to see something funny, pick any car on the road next time you're out. Pace him. Notice that - assuming no traffic - he will be accelerating downhill and decelerating going uphill. I used to get all kinds of annoyed because I keep my speed consistent within 1-2 mph. So I would start to pass someone as we got to the top of hill, and "suddenly" they sped up. Clearly they're aggressively trying to stop me... right? Nope (well, not usually). I start to pass them because when I arrive they're slowing at the top of hill. Then they go downhill and speed up - going faster than the speed I want to travel.

The best part is they look at me like I'm driving inconsistently and won't just pass them. Once I started to realize this several years back, it became more amusing than frustrating. ... erm... most of the time.

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Oops, issed one:

a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...)

or c) that person is the single fastest car on the road. Never be the fastest car if you want to avoid tickets - always find those idiots who want to drive faster AND weave through traffic. I have a name for them: "cop-bait".

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[JustNiz]

>> Also I rather assume the actual design of the left lane is for those who have no intention of exiting any time soon,

Absolutely wrong. Wow finally a chance to rant at one of you morons.

>> The GPS is bearing down with 'keep left', 'keep left', 'keep left', and I do so.
Stay Left means don't exit right, it absolutely doesn't mean hog the fast lane. If your GPS told you to drive off a cliff, would you do that too?

On any road with multiple lanes, especially freeways, the leftmost lane is meant to be a fast passing lane. Proper behavior is to use it to overtake then return to a more rightward lane as soon as you reasonably can.

It irritates the hell out of me when people sit in the fast lane of a 75mph freeway doing 55 mph or less. The fact that they are ignoring all the "slower traffic keep right" signs and the big queue of traffic behind them can only mean that they are being pig-headed and selfish, as surely no one can be that stupid to not notice anything wrong. The irony is they probably think that by going stupidly slowly they're actually being safe drivers, regardless of the chaos and tailbacks they're causing all around them.

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[BobMcD]

On any road with multiple lanes, especially freeways, the leftmost lane is meant to be a fast passing lane. Proper behavior is to use it to overtake then return to a more rightward lane as soon as you reasonably can.

Thanks for calling me a moron, but do you have any facts to back that up?

I do understand that this is the etiquette, but I disagree that the state would pour asphalt lanes with the expressed intent of someone using them to violate the law.

Now, you're likely correct when the highways are four total lanes divided by some yellow paint. The risk of going over the line is too great when oncoming traffic is only a few feet away. But then I specifically said 'interstate', didn't I?

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[zaft]

Who said anything about violating the law? In the western US, at least, it's the law in every state I've been in that slower traffic keeps right. If you are in the left lane and someone comes up behind you -- guess what? You are slower traffic. Move the heck over. It doesn't matter if you are doing the speed limit. Here's some info: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

On any road with multiple lanes, especially freeways, the leftmost lane is meant to be a fast passing lane. Proper behavior is to use it to overtake then return to a more rightward lane as soon as you reasonably can.

Thanks for calling me a moron, but do you have any facts to back that up?

I do understand that this is the etiquette, but I disagree that the state would pour asphalt lanes with the expressed intent of someone using them to violate the law.

Now, you're likely correct when the highways are four total lanes divided by some yellow paint. The risk of going over the line is too great when oncoming traffic is only a few feet away. But then I specifically said 'interstate', didn't I?

Re:If they really want to improve public safety...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's justified in calling you a moron. If you don't know that the passing lane is to be used for passing only, and thus get the fuck over in the right lane once you're done passing someone, you shouldn't be driving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_lane

Seriously, learn the fucking rules before you ever pick up your keys again.

They were not specific

[drumcat]

These were revenue generators, period.

Cameras make sense if you lower the fine

[Freedom Bug]

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.

Re:Cameras make sense if you lower the fine

[Ihlosi]

A small chance of a large ticket and a guaranteed chance of a small ticket should have similar deterrence rates.

Actually, the latter should have a better deterrence rate.

Cameras + Racial profiling

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Cameras + Racial profiling

[tibman]

If the speeding cameras could record your illegal speed, identify who you are (so they can send you the ticket), and otherwise not be usable as a camera. Would that satisfy you?

Re:Cameras + Racial profiling

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting question; why do you ask? My thoughts (and I'm the AC above):

Generally regarding these issues, putting the technology in gov't hands often leads to its use:

1) It's politically very difficult to impose limitations like that. Even if you pass a law now, and it's enforceable, and there are no loopholes, someone will come along and change it later.

2) Unless they buy cameras with hardware limitations (super-low res?), when the politics change (see above) then the firmware/software can be changed to overcome the limits.

Specifically:

3) If the cameras can identify you, then your movements can be tracked. Thus the gov't can track the movements of all citizens, where they go, and by comparing movements, who they associate with (is a political candidate meeting with a doner? Is someone meeting with their attorney? Union members going to picket? etc.)

Re:Cameras + Racial profiling

[tibman]

Yeah, i totally agree with you that the devices can be modified. I think the difference between us is trust in the government.

Take browser cookies for example.. government websites can't use them and so far they've done a good job enforcing that. Even though it would be super simple to enable such a feature and few would notice, it hasn't happened. I should say that Obama is trying to change this before someone jumps in (Executive's take on cookies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Federal-Websites-Cookie-Policy/). Just like you said about a new politico wanting to change the limits. But they can't just do it, they have to get permission.

There are plenty of great people working for the US Gov that have trust / paranoid issues that i'm sure a whistleblower would come forward about unlawful use of the devices.

I don't know, typing this out i can see how something good could become bad within a short ammount of time. But like i said, i think i trust the Government enough not to. If there was a way they could enforce speed limits without the privacy concerns, that would be great.

Re:Cameras + Racial profiling

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the difference between us is trust in the government.

I think if you look at history, including very recent history, you'll conclude that the trust is often well-placed, but inevitably misplaced. Obama won't be in office forever, and we're really talking about 50 state governments and (hundreds of thousands?) of local governments.

I'd also like to point out that it's not a matter of opinion or preference: The various governments will either abuse this power or not, no matter what you and I believe.

Don't worry, guys!

[Bluemumba]

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!

Re:Don't worry, guys!

[RandomFactor]

Lord no, why spend money on expensive cameras when photoshop handles that just fine? That's just being fiscally responsible.

Re:Don't worry, guys!

[Locke2005]

They WILL show if I'm getting a blow job from a fat chick while driving... which is much more embarrassing than my porn collection, especially when my wife opens the letter!

Re:Good?

[cc1984_]

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good?

[TheMeuge]

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.

Re:Good?

[demonlapin]

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.

Your missing something

[iceperson]

Where is the percentage of accidents that would have been avoided if the driver were traveling at the posted speed limit?

Re:Your missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

About 0% because speed affects the SEVERITY of the collision (mv^2) not the chance of whether it will happen. Whether it happens is based on human error, which can be made at any speed.

Re:Your missing something

[jayme0227]

Because, of course, you can't stop sooner at a lower speed or have more time to make an adjustment when going slower.

Re:Your missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower speeds don't decrease the chance of an accident, they decrease the severity. Fewer deaths, fewer cars involved since they require less room to stop.

Re:Your missing something

[Jake Griffin]

Who has more time, the speeder doing 75 coming up behind someone going the speed limit at 45, or the speeder doing 75 coming up behind someone going the speed limit at 60?

Re:Your missing something

[jayme0227]

The correct answer: the guy going 45 when a deer jumps out of the woods and bounds across the road. Or, the guy going 45 because both the 60 mph guy and the 75 mph guy are travelling faster than the "safe" speed for the highway, which we can estimate because speed limits are generally set at 85-90% of the safe speed for that road. But whatever.

There have been studies showing that increasing the speed limit on many highways has reduced traffic accidents. Generally, what they find is that raising the speed limits brought slower drivers up to the speeds that the speeders were already driving. The reduction of variance in speed is what reduced accidents.

What's the solution? Get everyone to drive the same speed. What is the simplest way to do this? Enact and enforce sane traffic laws. If the laws are stupid, people will respond to them in kind, if enforcement wanes, nobody will pay attention to the law.

To me, the best deterrent to speeding would be a huge unmistakable sign that reads "There will be x speed cameras randomly placed over the next y miles. The speed limit is Z. All speeders will be ticketed." That way everyone knows what to expect and everyone follows the law.

The biggest problem with many traffic laws right now is exactly what everyone has been stating: they are in place to make money. There is no deterrent from speeding if you don't know what the proper speed is or you don't know that you've been caught, but there's plenty of profit.

Re:Your missing something

[Jake Griffin]

The correct answer: the guy going 45 when a deer jumps out of the woods and bounds across the road.

I thought we were talking about Phoenix, AZ? :-)

In general, I agree with the rest of your post though. I was simply stating that unrealistic speed limits, e.g. 45 mph in a construction zone, even though there are no contsruction workers present, just cause that huge variance as you mentioned and I was stating that that variance causes accidents. Hence the 75 - 45 > 75 - 60 illustration. Yes, if it is unsafe to drive 60 mph, I am not advocating allowing the limit to be that anyway, I just think that a road that is normally 65-75 is not all of a sudden unsafe to drive at more than 45 because there are cones OFF THE ROAD when construction workers are not there.

Re:Your missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the percentage of accidents where fatalities would have been avoided if the driver had been traveling at the posted speed limit?

Re:Your missing something

[sznupi]

You realise that by this logic we should plow the surface of the Earth flat, right? After all, the stationary objects are certainly the most devastating and the biggest problem for safety of speeders...

Re:Your missing something

[sznupi]

The thing about present-not present construction workers is that many speeders would notice too late that the workers ar indeed there...
Also, constructions zones in case of roads imply often changes / reduction in lanes and heavy equipment left there.

Re:Your missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

In Arizona, they usually move the cones off the road (with minor construction) but leave the signs up. I'm just saying that when they aren't there, they should adjust the sign accordingly. Obviously, if the speed should be reduced even without them there, that's fine. But that's not usually the case. (Posting anon because I'm not on my comp, but this is Jake Griffin)

Re:Your missing something

[sznupi]

That's asking for mistakes. Both on the side of the workers (on the occasion of frequent reorganization of road two times per day) and drivers (because they being accustomed to as unchanging as possible road configuration, especially in potentially problematic strip, is a good thing)
Though I guess not doing it requires some sensible organisation of work...and even that might be not enough for cones to be, in the morning, mostly in the same place...and in one piece.

Doesn't matter

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Doesn't matter

[PolyDwarf]

And that's one reason why there's a ballot measure in place, so we-the-people decide, not the lawmakers.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrupt public officials accepting graft is bribery.

What the hell does this have to do with capitalism? Nothing is what. Are all of you people this stupid? Let me guess, you are a big Daily Show viewer aren't you?

Feh, morons.

Re:Doesn't matter

[swb]

They don't even have to give it to reelection campaigns. The added revenue simply becomes spending for constituencies or given to developers (and then kicked back).

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in AZ, I got my pic taken twice by these things. They are not giving up on photo surveillance, they are just scrapping the current company and method.

Camera's are a part of our future, I'm afraid.

BTW, the first time I got my picture taken I never received a ticket. It was dark, lots of dust, so it probably wasn't usable. The second time I did get a ticket, which I ignored until it went away. After 120 days if they don't serve you in person the ticket is unenforceable and dropped.

I don't take calls from telemarketing machines, why would I accept being accused of a crime by one? I'm all for safety, but this was an automated tax collection system.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Deosyne]

Fair enough, but did you notify someone after the 120 day point? That way they could fix whatever problem it was that falsely indicated that you were committing a crime, thus ensuring that the system only catches those who are putting other people at excessive risk by violating traffic laws.

I'm guessing the truth is much closer to a situation where you were actually speeding, got caught by the camera, and are now trying to claim the moral high ground. Not an accusation, just a supposition.

Umm, misinterpreted?

[autocracy]

".. 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.

Re:Umm, misinterpreted?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't understand. Motorists speeding by made it so noisy in the construction area that workers couldn't hear the steam rollers backing up onto them. By slowing down, our cars make less noise, making it possible for the workers to hear the incessant beeping of the steam roller, thus avoiding accidents.

Now do you understand how speeding motorists are responsible for road construction fatalities?

dom

Re:Umm, misinterpreted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put. I don't see a problem with speed. If you can't stay in your lane when driving that is a serious problem. If it is not a construction site it would have been another car. Crazy drivers are all over the roads. I live in Miami, FL which has consistently ranked among the worst driving in the country. It is not that much a matter of speed, unless it is really excessive, like when I am driving 70mph on a 55mph highway, keeping up with traffic, and a motorcycle blazes by at 110mph. I think if you increase speed limits the people driving faster will go just as fast and it will only speed up the people that are driving the unreasonably slow speed limit, improving the overall flow of the traffic. But really people need to learn to drive better, keep their distance between cars, use turn signals, respect other drivers and traffic signals. They should focus on keeping crazy drivers off the road, but that isn't nearly as profitable as putting up red light or radar cameras. Do they make combo red light radar cameras yet??

Re:Good?

[plover]

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.

Re:Good?

[medcalf]

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.

Re:Good?

[Rogerborg]

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.

Re:Good?

[sznupi]

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

Re:Good?

[cc1984_]

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.

that would be ideal

[drinkypoo]

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.

Arizona: singular or plural?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good?

[kilfarsnar]

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.

Re:Good?

[Rogerborg]

What you can't do is just say that you don't agree with the law.

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.

They need to replace with immigrant cameras

[mysidia]

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.

left lane drivers and turn signals

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good?

[xaxa]

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).

Re:Good?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

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...

Speeding cameras do racial profiling

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding cameras do racial profiling. A rich powerful politician or a cop found with a speeding violation gets a caution. At most.

Re:Speeding cameras do racial profiling

[Deosyne]

And this is different from a cop pulling the same person over how? Oh, right, the speed camera actually leaves a record of the person violating the law in the first place, whereas the cop just makes it disappear by not recording it. Not sure how race plays into this, unless all rich, powerful politicians and cops in your country are strictly made up of a single racial group.

You did nothing?

[iwaybandit]

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.

Re:Good?

[ArsonSmith]

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.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Good?

[TheMeuge]

That's actually where our societies are going.

Re:Good?

[NJRoadfan]

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.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

exactly, it's just a machine!

[fantomas]

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.

not vans; and didn't make money

[zojas]

They weren't vans, they were Ford Escapes.

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.

value of wrong

[dissy]

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.

Re:value of wrong

[wykell]

Actually I like your example better, and the way that AZ is going these days, you might just get them to pass it. It sure would help to deal with the "illegal" problem. And by "illegal" I do mean anyone who breaks any law. Just kill them all and let God sort them out, right? To Misanthropy! Cheers!

Somtimes it's not about being dumb.

[Petersko]

"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.

Cameras to enforce ridiculous speed limits?

[Shompol]

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.

The Real Reason for Repeal

[517714]

You can't "fix" the photo tickets. The politicians found out they were not above the law so they remedied the situation.

I've noticed something.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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.

Re:Good?

[Flowstone]

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.

The REAL story about the Legislature's failing to

[bjdevil66]

...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

Re:Good?

[insufflate10mg]

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.

Phoenix is hell on earth

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Density is also a factor

[petgiraffe]

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.

Re:Density is also a factor

[sznupi]

Would you kindly shows us the evidence that bigger distances at higher speed aren't offset by decrease in minimal safe time of reaction, increased braking distance and any sudden manouvers being much more dangerous at high speed?

Also, correct for the fact that that, at lower speeds and higher densitis, you can fit more cars on the road.

The problem is who is allowed to drive, not speed

[Jake Griffin]

I think if we just stopped allowing people like this to drive, the roads would be a much safer place...

I Could Support Cameras

[jesdynf]

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.)

so i just

[nimbius]

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.

Hypocritical racist Arizonans

[AlejoHausner]

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

Re:Hypocritical racist Arizonans

[zaft]

Many Arizonans did not/do not support SB1070. Don't call us all racist because we have stupid people in our government. I didn't vote for these people.

Re:Good?

[sznupi]

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?)

Re:Good?

[ArsonSmith]

and that was the bit of sarcastic irony in my statement :(

That and

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

Bring back responsibility and natural selection

[JustNiz]

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.

Re:Good?

[AndrewNeo]

I'd be rather interested to find someone capable of not following all the laws at the same time..

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

" 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.

"hair trigger"?

[fantomas]

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?

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good?

[Richy_T]

Yep. And if you're not choosing to obey the laws you do obey, you're not a free man, you're an automaton.

Re Guilty until proven innocent

[Technician]

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.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Bullshit

[garyisabusyguy]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Er...no.

The blood will be on the hands of the people who chose to drive unsafely.

And by the way, you murderous fuckwit--you're responsible for the deaths of
  1) every single person who stepped outside to drive at all and died in a related incident
  2) every single person who had a heard attack, getting up early to go to work
  3) every single person you let get on a plane that was hijacked
  4) every single crime that was committed that you didn't stop.

Really--I can't troll hard enough. Fuck you--leave me alone. Go die somewhere away from me. 'Cause I guarantee you--people who believe they actually have rights will rebel sooner or later and take you out with them if they have to.

What's the problem?

[AfroTrance]

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.

Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The (kind of obvious) real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Sudden rash of concern for privacy

[Autonomous Crowhard]

One of the things that's always funny about speeding cameras is how legislators deal with them. Legislators:

1. View them as a way of increasing revenue
2. Say it's all about safety
3. Realize that tickets from automated systems can't be "fixed"
4. Kill the system while talking about preserving the right to privacy

Re:The REAL story about the Legislature's failing

[Sarten-X]

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.