Yellow Vests Knock Out 60 Percent of All Speed Cameras In France (bbc.com)

Thelasko shares a report from the BBC: Members of the "yellow vests" protest movement have vandalized almost 60% of France's entire speed camera network, the interior minister has said. Christophe Castaner said the willful damage was a threat to road safety and put lives in danger. The protest movement began over fuel tax increases, and saw motorists block roads and motorway toll booths. Some protesters feel speed cameras are solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor. The BBC's Hugh Schofield, in Paris, said evidence of the vandalism is visible to anyone driving around France, with radar cameras covered in paint or black tape to stop them working.

Comments

Bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

Viva la french

Re:Bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yea bitchez!

Re:Bout time

[Z00L00K]

"Vive la France" is the correct writing.

Overall this shows that there's a threshold on how high pressure the politicians can put on the population. They often tend to forget that they actually are placed there to serve the citizens, not being the masters.

Re: Bout time

[Anonymous Coward]

I no that. I was trooling

Glorious

[Quakeulf]

Now knock out those who run the banks.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

Now knock out those who run the banks.

There's a plan for a run on the banks this weekend, I've heard. Nice idea, but I suspect the banks have plenty of legal protection against this, as in the US, and can just say "no".

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Knock out stupid parasite infestation sand monkeys back to monkeystans of origin.

Re:Glorious

[religionofpeas]

Wrecking the financial system is not a *nice idea*. The people in the yellow vests will be the first to suffer.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

Wrecking the financial system is not a *nice idea*.

Bankers keep telling me that. As long as deposits are insured by the government, every bank can collapse and nothing of value will be lost.

Re:Glorious

[Kokuyo]

So who do you think insures the government?

Exactly, yellow vests. They are essentially keying their own cars.

Re:Glorious

[Quakeulf]

What are you so afraid of? What is your stake in the banks? You really think your savings account is anything more than a "float balance = 123.03;"?

Re:Glorious

[Austerity Empowers]

every bank can collapse and nothing of value will be lost.

Definitely not the case as the government cannot faithfully insure all deposits in all banks. At some point the governments will collapse and the deposits will no longer be insured, and/or the currency they are based upon will be less valuable than toilet paper. This is an end-of-world scenario that always seemed more likely than an asteroid or super-bug. That said, these clowns do not have sufficient money on deposit to make that happen. They might make a run on a few banks, but they can't do much more than be very annoying.

They should stick to breaking speed cameras, that is a definite benefit to society that also gets the attention of the government. As long as they stick to things like this, a good hunk of hte general public might even support them, that's a far better place to be than terrorism.

Re:Glorious

[religionofpeas]

You really think your savings account is anything more than a "float balance = 123.03;"?

I'm afraid that some day it will say 0.00 because the bank needs to shore up its reserves.

Have you forgotten the 2013 Cyprus bank run ?

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as deposits are insured by the government

That is not the case. In Europe, deposits are typically insured up to 100000€, and this is backed by a fund into which the banks are required to pay, not the government. The fund is sized to allow for individual banks to fail, but is not big enough to pay out all deposits up to 100000€ at all banks at the same time.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I would hope it would at least be a "fixed balace = 123.03;" because floating point is subject to precision errors and is not a good method of representing financial data.

Re:Glorious

[jellomizer]

The problems with banks and the poor is nearly a catch 22 problem, and oddly enough there isn't much the Bank Owners can do.

To really succeed in life, you need money upfront. If you are young and can buy yourself a good working car that can last over a decade, and a good condition home where you don't need to pay rent, money to go to school and be trained to be well qualified for the workforce. So if you had all this money upfront and used it wisely. You can probably have a good life.
The problem is most young people do not have money, so they need a loan, to start out their lives. Now a bank loan needs to charge a higher interest rate for higher risk people. This was a big part of the 2008 recession, the subprime loans which split the risk to the institution meant they could offer lower interest rates to higher risk people, who then got loans they couldn't afford to pay. But this means if you are poor and have less money, you need to pay more money to borrow money. This puts you in a poverty cycle. And unfortunately banks can't just give the poor lower interest rates, because they are at a such a high risk of not paying it back.

This is the reason why we need government or some non-commercial safety net services. To help get people out of the cycle. This could mean giving people money to start out their lives, or offering services where they can get affordable housing or transportation and education healthcare...
These services don't fit well on a commercial business plan, because the payback is to society, not to service giving it.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest I'd rather have precision loss than overflow.

A couple of cents less per million doesn't bother me as much as a sign change.

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

In Europe, deposits are typically insured up to 100000€, and this is backed by a fund into which the banks are required to pay, not the government.

It works the same in America, except the limit is $250k, and the FDIC fund is backstopped with tax dollars, so a big collapse that depleted the FDIC fund would mean the government "printing" money to make up the shortfall.

Will this lead to inflation? Unlikely. In a financial crisis, the big danger is deflation, not inflation. Following the 2008 crisis, the Fed "printed" $3.5 Trillion, and inflation remained near zero.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're in Israel.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking kidding me? The last run on a bank in the UK was Northern Rock. The result has been more than a decade of austerity and tens of thousands of people dying early. Not to mention the rise of nationalist politics that worked oh-so-well in the 30s and 40s.

Fucking idiot.

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

Have you forgotten the 2013 Cyprus bank run ?

That happened because Cyprus does not control its own currency. America does. The Fed can handle any bank run by creating any amount of money needed.

Currency unions such as the West African Franc work well because the members have similar economies, and have a clear agreement that there will be no bailouts.

The Euro tries to unify countries as different as Cyprus and Germany, with very different levels of income, productivity, and cultural expectations of financial responsibility. The convergence of interest rates following the currency union clearly indicated that investors expected a bailout ... and that is exactly what happened, with German and Dutch taxpayers subsidizing Greek and Cypriot profligacy.

Re:Glorious

[MightyYar]

Agreed. Even though France can't "print money" like the US Fed can, the EU would ultimately back French deposits. The French government has a standing pledge to not allow any French bank to fail - though a total collapse would obviously require EU help.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the UKs austerity was caused by northern rock?

Wow... and you have the nerve to call someone else an idiot? Thatâ(TM)s amusingly self deluded

Re:Glorious

[BlackOverflow]

Tell that to Starbucks. They partnered with Arizona State University several years ago and started offering 1 free bachelor's degree to every employee (each semester the employee pays up front, and gets reimbursed at the end of the semester), and also provide free health insurance to all employees with a minimum average of 20 hours per week. Starbucks is usually considered an entry-level job, but they recognize that helping their employees with these basic needs benefits them in the long run. That's how all companies should be. Many are and get no credit for it.

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, I would hope it would at least be a "fixed balace = 123.03;" because floating point is subject to precision errors and is not a good method of representing financial data.

Banks do not use floating point. They use integers, with the balance in cents. So $123.03 is stored as 12303.

Many banks now use 64 bit signed integers with the balance in hundredths of a cent. So a balance of $123.03 is stored internally as 1230300, and then rounded and shifted when displayed.

This will work until Jeff Bezo's account balance goes over $922 Trillion.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Itâ(TM)s not a floating point number, you fuckhead. Itâ(TM)s a fixed point number. No bank is going to use floats and all the issues that go with them when they have perfectly serviceable data types that donâ(TM)t have rounding and subnormal errors.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice idea, but I suspect the banks have plenty of legal protection against this, as in the US, and can just say "no".

If you mean "no, we need X days notice for that amount" or "no, we are presently out of money", sure.

But if you mean "no, we are keeping your money forever ha ha ha ha ha", gonna need a citation on that.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there is more than one financial crisis out there, right?

I have a 100 trillion dollar bill, a 500 million mark bill, and several thousand bolivar hanging on my wall that suggest currencies can go up too.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo hoo yellow vests please come to Blacksonville and knock-out 60% of our "quick count" red-light cameras. Shove it up their azzwholes ... mon deu ... whatever ...

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

the bankers are wrecking the financial system
the banks are bigger now then they where in 2008
the systematic continuously keeps increasing

Hence there's an argument to be made that it's better to make the system crash today, then to wait for it to crash by itself. As the resulting fallout will be somewhat smaller today.

Providing an alternative system, or a fix for the problem would be a better approach, but unfortunately I really don't see how anyone can pull that off

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

at this point there's no more gold reserve
which means that money in the bank is just numbers on a digital account

government could just set up a bankaccount for everyone,
and pull a number out of thin air to put on it,

on a practical level that would work just fine
PROVIDED that the general public is willing the government doing so

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

The French need to decide what kind of country they want to be. Issues like these should be resolved democratically, not through vandalism. Yet France has a long history of caving in to violent demonstrators, which has made street demonstrations more and more popular, and made any sort of sensible economic reforms impossible.

The latest polls show that a majority of the French support the vandals and rioters.

It doesn't have to be that way. They should look at Italy as a country that manages to be economically dysfunctional without political violence. France could do the same.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

the fundamental is that we have a banking system that is fundamentally fraudulent

If I want to loan you a 1k euros/dollars I need to first have a 1k
If a bank wants to loan you 1k they only need to have 15 euros/dollars (legally required fractional reserve ratio is currently set at 1.5% last time I checked). HOWEVER they get to ask you interest on the full 1k

We need to get rid of fractional reserve banking...
The question is how we can transition out of it.

Apperently the answer of the yellow vests is 'crash the old system first', because in their opinion nothing else will get a chance to replace the old system without that step .

While I personally doubt that that is the most productive possible approach, it's certainly possible to argue rationally that they're right in that it's the only practically possible approach (certainly without buy in of the financial super powers)

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

The people in the yellow vests are drivers. They're the first impacted by the cameras.

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

Reminiscent of the US government shutdown.

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

Americans used similar tactics to move the needles on civil rights, the Vietnam war, and the shitty police force in Baltimore.

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

Americans used similar tactics to move the needles on civil rights, the Vietnam war

The most influential protests in these movements were non-violent. The protests that were violent were likely counterproductive.

... and the shitty police force in Baltimore.

The shittiness of the Baltimore PD has not changed. They have repeatedly been caught planting and falsifying evidence, with no more than administrative action against the criminal cops.

Re:Glorious

[jellomizer]

Well that is to keep the employee hired at Starbucks. However if the company doesn't mark up its products by a few hundred percent they may not have the resources to pay for all this.

Re:Glorious

[LazarusQLong]

when you feel the 'democratic process' no longer works, what are you to do? For example, in the US usually the person that spends the most money on advertising wins (since about 1960) Does this mean that the democratic process is working? Or that the person with the most money wins? Does the 'most money' mean democracy works? When Corporations have been defined as 'citizens' for the purposes of swaying elections, but do not have the limitations normally given 'persons' ($2300 limit to campaign contributions for example) does Democracy win? I believe that the reason for these violent outbursts is that many people feel disenfranchised and are hopeless about their ability to have any sort of a say in how their government works. I believe that we, in the US, are getting to that point as well.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you mean "Wall Street". Or the "East Coast". Or the "Rothschilds" and "Illuminati" and "Soros". I know who you mean when you say "those who run the banks", asshole.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than people being impacted by their cars.

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

Check yourself. The rioters are not from Paris. They are from the 'burbs. They don't drive around Paris. That's for tourists.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

Exactly, yellow vests. They are essentially keying their own cars.

Have you ever followed any news at all about protests in France? Yeah.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

Do you even banking? The savings are backed by mortgages, in general. The government can administer the funds appropriately.

Also, I don't think "collapse of the government" would be seen as a negative by the Yellow Vests. Much like there's a rather large group of Americans who would be content to see the current government shutdown become permanent. When the government stops serving the people, it's time to start over. Both France and the US have this history, after all.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

. Following the 2008 crisis, the Fed "printed" $3.5 Trillion, and inflation remained near zero.

They didn't increase the money supply. At the same time they were printing trillions, banks were (due to fed incentives) depositing roughly the same amount with the Fed. The recent stock market excitement was the beginning of the cost of unwinding that.

Don't take it as an example that printing money dosn't cause inflation - by itself it always does, often leading to the collapse of the currency. The Fed was very clever, and time will tell if they were too clever, as the other shoe has yet to drop.

Re:Glorious

[b0s0z0ku]

They were counterproductive because they weren't violent enough. Clearly, the American Revolution was violent enough to be productive. :)

Re:Glorious

[zugmeister]

So who do you think insures the government?
Exactly, yellow vests. They are essentially keying their own cars.

Sometime you should look up how a hunger strike works.
Even if it's not good for them immediately, at least their voices are being heard and Macron is now paying attention.

Re:Glorious

[SuricouRaven]

You don't need money upfront, but it's a huge help. People who work their way up to success from poor beginnings can be found, but they are the exception, not the rule. There are just enough to provide a sense of hope for the lower classes ("I must work harder!") and a sense of moral reassurance for the upper classes ("Lazy poor people just don't want to work hard enough, so they get no sympathy from me.")

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

You know that wasn't caused by the banks, right? The government decided to just rob the people of some percentage of all savings accounts. People weren't happy with that idea. Of course, the very rich were tipped off ahead of time, and got their money out of the banking system before the robbery.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

The people in the yellow vests are drivers. They're the first impacted by the cameras.

And now they're the first impacting the cameras. Seems fair.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

If you mean "no, we need X days notice for that amount" or "no, we are presently out of money", sure.

Yup, they can delay you for 90 days. I think the Fed can add another 90 days if the bank is dead.

Re:Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

in the US usually the person that spends the most money on advertising wins

Part of the reason for this is that the person most likely to win attracts the most donations.

I believe that we, in the US, are getting to that point as well.

I don't think so. Every person who thinks we need to move further to the left is counterbalanced by someone else who wants to move right.

Everyone may be frustrated, but they are frustrated about different things, and desire different solutions. The current system is about as close to a consensus as we are going to get.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you use floating point arithmetic for money?

Re: Glorious

[dev-in-seattle]

What can be lost is the banks records. Also records of paychecks, who paid bills. That hurts the poor more than me

Re: Glorious

[dev-in-seattle]

Starbucks does mark prices up 100s of percent over their competitors. In my area their prices are average, maybe cheap even

Re: Glorious

[dev-in-seattle]

Crap, meant to say "does not mark up prices"

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

It is fair.

People everywhere get to determine their own destiny. If things don't suit them, they can burn the house down. That's what America is doing, right?

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify, "sure" was not sarcasm, "sure" was me agreeing that yes there are situations where the banks can say no. But my point (which I failed to spell out, my fault) is that if you are claiming banks "can just say 'no'" outside of those 2 situations, you're gonna need to provide some proof of that.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

It may come to that, but at the moment we're just trying to get a working lock on the front door.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

They can say "no, you can't cause a bank run by getting your money today."

Re:Glorious

[mysidia]

Banks do not use floating point. They use integers, with the balance in cents. So $123.03 is stored as 12303.

Naw, financial entities and applications that need to record currency entries use Fixed Point types such as NUMERIC(12,2) or NUMERIC(14,4)

As for Bezos.... the $1 Trillion is mainly the theoretical current market value of Amazon, and when they say Bezos is worth $137 billion; that's mostly a fictitious value referring to his stock holdings ---- So far, the only possible entity that could in theory have a Trillion or more of real money in a single bank account would be an entity such as the US government.

A 64-bit binary representation of hundreds of a cent seems pretty darned safe for the foreseeable future.
The bank can just introduce a policy that if your balance or a deposit exceeds $1 Trillion; 9 virtual bank accounts will be created: the balance will be split between the accounts at 10% per account, and withdrawals will be taken against whichever virtual subaccount has the highest balance.

Re:Glorious

[CaptainDork]

Better lock the back doors, too. American scientists and students, as well as businesses, are escaping to more tolerant countries.

Re:Glorious

[mysidia]

Now we need cameras to watch the speed cameras; in order to ticket the people who try to vandalize the cameras.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 57 years old, black, and grew up in Baltimore.

You have no god damn idea what you're talking about.

The violence frightened good people out of our communities, and left us with a mostly desolate wasteland for years. My mom had to walk 8 blocks to get to a pharmacy. My parents eventually left because there wasn't a future for us there.

Dr. King did so much for us that violence never could. He proved that misguided folks like you never actually solve anything. You're giving credit to violence for things that only non violence can accomplish. Safety and security, love, compassion, discovery and innovation don't happen during one of your riots. Nothing but destruction and fear happens.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod this up!

Unless the violence is sufficient to kill off your opposition across a huge swath of the country (like a full blown bloody revolution) the violent rioters are only hurting their supposed cause. The person the above is replying to sounds like a moronic antifa thug.

Re:Glorious

[lgw]

more tolerant countries.

Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. We, as a nation, either have the right to determine who enters our country, or we don't. We believe in democracy here, and so it must be the voters who get to determine who and how many. But any decision of the voters is moot if that decision can't be enforced.

And that, right hter, is the only real issue here. The very richest families in America don't like where democracy stands on immigration. The number of immigrants we would choose (and have chosen) to welcome here costs them billions compared to the depressed wages that unlimited immigration brings. Can't have that: having less than all the money possible is flatly unacceptable. So the very rich must bypass the ability of the voters to decide.

It boggles my mind how many people don't see the actual issue here.

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Italy? You mean the birthplace of fascism?

Re:Glorious

[Rockoon]

The latest polls show that a majority of the French support the vandals and rioters.

Proving that the government isnt representing the people.

You, however, assume the government is representing the people and that therefore the protests arent justified.

Re:Glorious

[Rockoon]

The scaling factor they have used is 10000 since computers were first used by banks, never the 100 you claim they started with, a scaling factor that has become its own datatype in some programming languages since the early 1990s.

Re:Glorious

[Rockoon]

This is the reason why we need government or some non-commercial safety net services.

We've had that my whole life. What are you trying to say?

This is the problem with the left. Give them what they want, and a few years later they will be asking for it again as if they arent already getting it...

Re:Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

do not have the limitations normally given 'persons' ($2300 limit to campaign contributions for example)

That's not how that works and that's not what Citizens United decided.

Corporations, PACs, and individuals all are permitted to donate the exact maximum to a given candidate's campaign which I believe that value is $2,500 or $2,700. What Citizens United decided was that a group of individuals do not lose their First Amendment rights just because they're organized as a group and political speech is decisively protected by the First Amendment. The court decision was absolutely correct even if the behavior it protects is undesirable to a great many people.

If Jeff Bezos wants to spend $500,000 running an ad campaign against Donald Trump, he's perfectly within his First Amendment rights. If the UAW wants to spend $500,000 running an ad campaign against Donald Trump, they're perfectly within their First Amendment rights. If 2016 Hillary Clinton wanted to run a $500,000 ad campaign against Donald Trump she would have needed 200 donors donating the maximum of $2,500 to run that campaign.

What's better for Bezos to get his political point across? Spend $500,000 of his own money on an ad campaign or donate $2,500 to Hillary Clinton? Neither, he'd do both.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow antisemitic much???

Re:Glorious

[VeryFluffyBunny]

No need to knock out the banks, just switch to credit unions. The fewer customers that banks have, the less power they hold. And after all, it's the banks who are calling the shots economically these days, e.g. increases in fuel taxes to pay for their catastrophic mismanagement in 2007-2008. We need to starve them out of our lives.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunger strikes are even dumber than riots. Don't want to eat? Cool, it's a free country... For now

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat the rich. Yummy! Now, with more guillotines.

Re: Glorious

[ShanghaiBill]

The violence frightened good people out of our communities, and left us with a mostly desolate wasteland for years.

The same thing happened in Detroit following the 1967 riots. Businesses closed, whites fled, taking their tax dollars with them.

Re:Glorious

[manu0601]

Look at Macron. He backed down only after things got violent.

This! I do not back violence, but unfortunately that seems to be the only thing that a leader like Macron can understand.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear. The KKK, Antifa, and BLM didn't win any favors by violence, rioting, or blocking roads, all it did was piss people off.

France is an odd one. The French Revolution was a disaster, and ever since then, France has defined its change through violence and destruction (make sure you have a garage, or your car will probably be a crisp in the morning.)

Robespierre killed his own lieutenants, then himself met the guillotine, and instead of democracy, they got Napoleon's military dictatorship, followed by a return to monarchy for another 30 years.

Re: Glorious

[astrofurter]

That's why the semi-official media keeps bleating on about the obsolete, incoherent "left vs right" false dichotomy.

The yellow vests are a _populist_ movement. A workers' movement. Not "leftist", not "rightist". That's why it worries the financialist Establishment.

Re: Glorious

[astrofurter]

"The court decision was absolutely correct even if the behavior it protects is undesirable to a great many people."

Citizens United, a decision that will live in infamy, is the Dred Scott of our day. Regardless of its legalistic "merits" it was a profoundly immoral ruling.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

I have well over 1,000,000VND in my wallet right now! (That's about $45).

Re: Glorious

[astrofurter]

"That hurts the poor more than me"

Most unlikely.

The poor are cursed to be forever in debt to the rich. Each month big computers decide how much to rob each worker, and he must pay up - forget the legal fairy tales, in reality workers have no rights and must pay whatever is demanded. No matter how much they work or pay they will never be anything other than poor. That's how Financialism works.

Now the dwindling "middle class" at least in theory has a chance of getting out of debt. So for them, payment records might have actual value. (Never mind that "middle class" status is for most people merely an illusion. It's an illusion that people really _want to_ believe.)

Re:Glorious

[wisnoskij]

When incorrect opinions are illegal, and all content a person sees is owned by 100 international billionaires street protests are the one democratic act left.

Re:Glorious

[apol]

> the French support the vandals and rioters

I wouldn't put it that way. The French support the Yellow Vest movement, which -- unlike the government and most of the corporate media claim -- does not reduce into vandalism and rioting.

Re:Glorious

[Quakeulf]

Then declare war.

Re:Glorious

[bluegutang]

It's been 11 years already - how long do we need to wait to see if they are "too clever"? For how many years should any economic difficulties be ascribed to this as opposed to any other cause?

Re:Glorious

[Pig Hogger]

Now knock out those who run the banks.

You're a hateful antisemite!!!!

Re:Glorious

[Pig Hogger]

The French need to decide what kind of country they want to be. Issues like these should be resolved democratically,

That’s easy to say, but the current electoral two-run process is very easy to rig: at the last presidential election, finally, people had the choice between an ultra-right wing nazi, and the banker’s minion that got elected.

This was easy to achieve: have your media spew forth a lot of anti-immigrant / anti-migrant bullshit, and watch the nazis rise enough to make the first electoral turn.

Re:Glorious

[Pig Hogger]

Same thing in Québec. People in Canada wonder why we have the lowest tuition: that’s because we work HARD rioting against each proposed increase.

It will never work in the US because the people are brainwashing into thinking that they'll become zillionnaires if they don't make waves and work hard...

Re:Glorious

[Pig Hogger]

Unlike in the US, where the people have been brainwashed into thinking that if they work hard and make no waves, they'll become zillionnaires, the French know that success mostly depends on who your parents are and if they can afford to give you the education that will enable you to attend the élite schools (ENA, X)...

Hence their willingness to rock the boat and riot. And the government knows this, hence the extremely heavy-handed police response to riots (like 6 months of jail for someone who "liked" a call to block an oil refinery on Facebook. (In France, the Justice system will take orders from the government).

Re:Glorious

[Pig Hogger]

This will work until Jeff Bezo's account balance goes over $922 Trillion.

At that time, he’ll have his own bank, with blackjack and hookers.

Re: Glorious

[CaptainDork]

Go back and look at all the Baltimore police scandals that surfaced only after physical violence. There wasn't a goddam thing done to stop those asshole until people, fed up, burned the goddam city. There's still trials docketed for police corruption.

I'm not saying it's nice.

I'm saying it's necessary.

And effective.

Re: Glorious

[CaptainDork]

While your story is interesting, the rioters were not the cause of your ills. They were the cure. The cause of the Baltimore riots was dirty cops and crooked politicians.

Re: Glorious

[Anonymous Coward]

ðY'

There are way too many cameras including LPRs

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2010s will be known for invasion of privacy and technology used for evil.

Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[sinij]

Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't speed and I glad to pay less in taxes, so I'm fine with them

They also slow people down, which is a good thing

Speed limits were designed when cars were rolling pieces of art, not modern machines with anti-roll, traction controlled, ABS, collision avoidance, curtain airbagged modern marvels. Granted on congested city streets, speed can be a danger, but for most of the country, 55 could be 75 with little to no impact on the casualty rate. One city here put up speed cameras because of the accident rate going up during construction. Of course, the accidents happened where they completely changed the flow of traffic with literally no warning, and concrete barriers to enforce the new rule, not the straight away they put the cameras. They made over 2 Million dollars in a month, and I have never seen an accident on that stretch of highway and I drive on it every day for work.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[religionofpeas]

Of all kinds of taxation, I'd prefer the speed cameras, because I can avoid paying by sticking to the posted speed limit.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Speeding shouldn't be a crime anyway unless and until you hurt another party. Victim less crimes are un-American and not found in a truly free state."

Ehh, ok... I'm half-way with you.

Speed traps (cameras, hidden cop in the bushes, etc) are all regressive forms of taxation usually targeting low income areas. America is probably the most friendly nation when it comes to speeding though. (Ya Germany is pretty close)

Only in the States have I been able to know that driving 10 - 15 over the limit on the highway is not going to get me pulled over. If the limit is 130 (km/h not mph) and I see a speed trap or cop nearby in Europe, you better believe I'm hitting the breaks, even if I'm only going 135.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[lgw]

Except for the ones that malfunction. Funny how often that happens. Funny how in the US you have no right to challenge the payment in court if you think the device is broken.

Far better to have a lottery, if you want a tax you can avoid paying. At least there somebody wins.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Ogive17]

In my area it's now only legal to have a speed camera operating when there is an officer physically at the intersection.

I don't think it's a good solution but at least it serves to limit the revenue stream for the company that operates them.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when they lower the speed limits right after installing the cameras. Coincidence?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[religionofpeas]

Funny how in the US you have no right to challenge the payment in court

Well, there's your problem.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[jabuzz]

Problem is that the greater the speed in an accident the more likely someone is to be seriously injured or killed. Further the *PUBLIC* roads are just that a shared public resource.

Your rights to go as fast as you want stop at my nose.

Get back to me when you are a happy for killing someone in an accident to be treated as murder.

In the meantime speeding is a crime, and speed cameras only punish those who choose to recklessly endanger other people for their convenience and/or pleasure.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

something something autobahn

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want it for safety, they should place one of the sensors with a display showing your current speed that flashes red (vs normal display in yellow) when you're going too fast and will receive a ticket (12+mph over the limit is the normal deciding factor in the US, since we cruise at 10mph over the limit as a rule) 200m before the actual ticketing sensor. That way, anyone who is ignorant to the limit has a chance to correct their behavior and avoid the fine. Not every speed display needs a ticketing sensor beyond it, just enough to make people believe that if it flashes your speed in red, you're likely to get a ticket if you don't slow down immediately.

Or, like Italian (IIRC) highways, where there are stoplights in the middle of nowhere. If someone is excessively speeding, the light turns red and the entire highway must stop as collective punishment for the one speeder. But no fines are doled out.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Freischutz]

Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.

They have a point and they also don't have a point. There are speed camera firms that actually deliver presentations to municipal politicians on how they can 'maximise revenue' from speed cameras, I have seen camera footage taken by TV journalists who mounted a sting operation at a major speed camera exhibition in Europe. Those cameras these yellow vested hooligans can knock down for all I care. However, there is a street in my town where there are two schools and a communal home for blind people, the max speed is 30km/h and people used to regularly blast through there at 70-80km/h until some f**ktard ran over a 3rd grader and they set up a bunch of speed average cameras on that street. Alluvasudden everybody drives through there at 30 km/h, I wonder why? ... could it be that people only ever learn through large amounts of money disappearing from their wallet? Those camera serves a very useful purpose because the world is full of self absorbed asshats who seem to consider themselves to be on a holy mission from god to never drive slower than the number written on the maximum speed signs and that the red traffic lights don't apply to them.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a civil fine, not a criminal or traffic fine, so there's no right to face your accuser, it can be levied by a contractor instead of a sworn police officer, and a bunch of other legal mumbo-jumbo. But if you fail to pay it, the state won't let you renew your driver's license.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Spamalope]

Now we know you're lying or you drive while the right color and not looking poor. Otherwise you'd know that driving the speed limit is not an effective defense to prevent speeding tickets. (as with other 'because I said so' citations like failing to stop at a stop sign or changing lanes without a turn signal)

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when they lower the speed limits right after installing the cameras. Coincidence?

Probably not, but it seem inefficient since people quickly get wise to that. What they normally do is put the speed cameras on those curved highway off ramps 100m inside the city limits hidden behind the bushes so you don't see the things until it's too late. The idea here is that people don't ususally slam on the brakes when they see the lower speed limit sign, they just let the car coast and slow down by itself, aaaaand .... *BLINK* You've been fined. That is a very common and extremely cheap way of defrauding drivers. Another trap I ran into was in a village where the speed max was 50 km/h. At the town limits the max speed went up to 70 km/h, tempting you to accelerate when you saw that sign only to ... *BLINK* You've been fined... At the minimum legal distance before the 70 km/h sign there was a big old oak tree and in front of it, painted oak bark brown was a speed camera. That trap actually impressed me, it was kind of clever.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Spamalope]

With red light cameras the usual thing is to shorten the timers. First shorten the yellow light until you're caught doing it on camera and you lose court cases, then play games with the green light. In my area they would shorten green lights to 1 second on busy roads with no side streets to cause multi-hour delays, then they'd ticket drivers in the thousands who reasonably treated the signal as malfunctioning.
The equivalent with speed cameras is to lower the speed limit. 'the government lowered the limit on many main roads' Imagine my shock at finding that.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

So your ability to obey the posted speed limit is somehow tied to your wealth?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

If your lawyer told you that you can't challenge it, get a better lawyer.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[religionofpeas]

Now we know you're lying or you drive while the right color and not looking poor.

Wow, speed cameras have the technology to see whether the driver looks poor ?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Death rates are lower on the Autobahn. Perhaps instead of going after speeders, go after people who hog the left lane which impact those behind them. Maybe go after those who don't signal their intent which can also affect those around them.

Speed doesn't kill. Idiots do.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Quakeulf]

Explain the autobahn.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[religionofpeas]

You live in a fucked up place if a contractor can levy random fines without legal recourse.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Austerity Empowers]

The flashing sensor is a great idea that cannot happen in the US. Our system of fair play, justice and taxation is normally about sticking the other guy with the bill. If we had a perfect system that fined people for misbehavior evenly and everywhere, and actually acted to slow people down, there'd be riots.

The cops-in-bushes system of speed control is mostly about hiding the cost of government on the unlucky. It's very similar to how our hospitals work: you get sick, you pay for yourself and a % of everyone else that used the hospital that couldn't pay. Health care for all... wow, no way, too expensive!

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Oswald McWeany]

Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.

If you hate Speed Cameras, move to South Carolina- not only are speed cameras not used, they're against the State constitution.

Everything else in the state sucks, but at least there aren't any speed cameras for you to worry about.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how in the US you have no right to challenge the payment in court if you think the device is broken.

I have no idea why you might think that. My wife did that very thing when she got a ticket a few years ago. It turned out she was correct, and the ticket was invalidated. The police also claimed that they invalidated all tickets sent out between the last (incorrect) calibration and the retest, but we have no easy way to verify that.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[b0s0z0ku]

Speed cameras have their place -- in residential areas where car traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists. Problem is that some areas implement them on highways with already ridiculously low speed limits.

In residential areas, speed cameras are actually better if they can replace human cops who have more "discretion" to stop people because their car looks "suspicious." (Driver wrong color, car not new/posh enough, etc). At least speed cameras can't go on fishing expeditions, run the papers of all passengers for unpaid parking tickets from 1984, shoot someone while "resisting arrest", or plant politically-incorrect plant products during a search of the vehicle.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding shouldn't be a crime anyway unless and until you hurt another party. Victim less crimes are un-American and not found in a truly free state.

Do you apply this to consistently or are you a hypocrite?

How do you feel about drunk driving? Is that OK as long as I don't hit anyone.
What about firing a gun into a crowd of people? Is that legal as long as I miss every shot?
Attempted murder is fine as long as you don't succeed? Just keep trying.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[b0s0z0ku]

The difference is that European motorways tend to have higher speed limits in the first place -- outside of a few Western states (Utah, Texas, Nevada), US motorways tend to have speed limits around 110km/h. Drivers are less likely to be stopped, but since almost everyone breaks the limit, it gives police an excuse to harass anyone whose looks they don't like.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Oswald McWeany]

It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.

Yes, it is illegal to drive over the speed limit; but, I'm wary of any law that is violated by the majority of the population.

Ideally, a free state wouldn't have any laws or regulations that the majority of the citizenry routinely breaks- when you have the majority of people being "law breakers", it's easy for authorities to abuse their power and target people they don't agree with (because they can point to laws they've broken).

Dictatorships, and communist regimes regularly did this. If you make it impossible to not be a law breaker- you have an excuse to arrest anyone if they become inconvenient.

Police officers love "to enforce speed limit" when they see someone suspicious- it gives them an excuse to examine someone they might think is perhaps guilty of something else. I remember as a teenager getting pulled over by a police officer (for going 5 mph over the speed limit) outside a night club zone... I'm not an idiot, he didn't pull me over for speeding- he pulled me over to check if I had been drinking... he saw a kid driving near the night clubs and wanted an excuse. He didn't give me a ticket, heck, he didn't even look at my driver's license, just gave me a verbal warning when he noticed I was sober.

Now, cameras are more judicial, they don't pull you over on suspicion... but, my problems with them is that, they're not completely equal. They give tickets to people who don't know they are there, people from out of town... locals know to avoid them. They don't actually prevent people from speeding (except past the camera), they just "Tax" the out-of-towners.

Speed limits are important, and I recognize they are needed; but I don't like them, BECAUSE, it's a way to be used for arbitrary punishment of citizens... I don't like such laws... in the case of speed limits they're kinda a necessity. When automated cars are the norm, thankfully they will be less of an issue.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

In France, rich people live in a few major metropolitan areas that are unfriendly to vehicular traffic; therefore, they do not drive automobiles. Even if they do, they drive within their urban bubbles. Speed cameras are posted on rural roads. The only people driving along those are working-class.

The GP predicated his "while the right color and not looking poor" on an American set of stereotypes. The "poor" of the Yellow Vests are almost entirely white and working-class. The non-white French poor live in the cities, do not drive, and are not affected by speed cameras.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

[outside perspective here, I live in the US] The autobahn is a limited access freeway system designed specifically for high speed with strictly enforced laws that are implemented to avoid crashes (no riding in the left lane, for instance)

Most of the crashes I've witnessed or read about on our road system involve someone doing something stupid at an intersection, like turning left in front of someone (personally experienced that one), running a red light, pulling out in front of someone, improper lane changes, crashing into light poles, things like that. Most of those things aren't a problem on a limited access freeway system. I would guess that the vast majority of the freeway crashes we see here are the result of people not paying attention. It amazes me how I STILL see people texting, doing their makeup, reading, or one of 100 other stupid things while driving.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[cascadingstylesheet]

Problem is that the greater the speed in an accident the more likely someone is to be seriously injured or killed. Further the *PUBLIC* roads are just that a shared public resource.

Your rights to go as fast as you want stop at my nose.

Get back to me when you are a happy for killing someone in an accident to be treated as murder.

In the meantime speeding is a crime, and speed cameras only punish those who choose to recklessly endanger other people for their convenience and/or pleasure.

I would share your view (about the existence of speed limits anyway, if not of cameras) if speed limits in the US were reasonable, and if enforcement were uniform.

Instead, the reality (and everyone knows it) is that speed limits are set too low, and therefore almost everybody speeds an "acceptable" amount, except for a few antisocial types who think they are doing good by driving under the limit but who actually create danger through the high speed differentials that they create.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

I think that's the argument. It's a fucked up system.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[JaredOfEuropa]

The problem is that it's a revenue stream at all. Over here, income from fines used to be off-budget and got dumped straight into the national debt. Then they changed the rules and added the income to the budget. And every year the take from fines has gone up, both nr of fines issued and the amounts have been increasing steadily.

Now, if this was to improve road safety, you'd expect them to do 2 things: issue loads of fines to speeders to remind them that they're being watched, and have speed traps in places where people often drive dangerously fast. And no, those 2 things are not the same, and the speed traps are placed almost exclusively to cover the first case. Do 5km/h over the limit on a highway where it is perfectly safe to do so and you are likely to get a fine. Do 60km/h on a road that is built for traffic at 80km/h but happens to be within the city limit so it's a 50, and you are likely to pass a speed trap (cops love those roads). Do 60km/h on a quiet narrow road where even the posted limit of 30km/h is on the fast side... and you're safe. No cop will ever post there.

Case in point: a few years ago the cops posted at the end of a stretch of highway with reduced speed limit due to road works. They reported that to their horror, 80% of passing drivers were exceeding the speed limit. And my initial reaction was the same: wow, 80%, idiot drivers. But then I thought: if you are all about traffic safety and you notice this, wouldn't it occur to you that perhaps the speed limit reduction might not have been posted clearly enough? Wouldn't the better course of action not be to sit tight and rake in fines, but to move your speed trap to a very visible spot at the start of the road works? You probably wouldn't grab a single fine but you'll slow everyone down nicely.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[kilfarsnar]

It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.

Simple solutions for simple minds. The speed limit on most highways is too low. Modern cars a requite capable; they handle and stop very well. The fact is, traffic flow in my area is regularly at about 80 MPH on the highway, even though the limit is 65. When ~75% of people see no problem with breaking the law, it's not the people who are wrong, it's the law.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[JaredOfEuropa]

You're lucky. After someone got killed in our street they did exactly nothing despite repeated petitions from the residents. After about 15 years they finally installed a bollard to block thru traffic at least.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

I know how fast I can drive safely. If I'm in error, charge me when I do so.

Did you really just make the "I should be allowed to drive as fast as I deem safe until I cause an incident." argument?

That's all speed limits are. People who think they know better.

Are you under the impression that speed limits are just made up at random? Or are you actually aware that there are scientific methods, formulas, and guidelines used by engineers to determine what the proper speed for a particular stretch of road should be?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

Just a wild thought here, but perhaps speed limits are set based on the likelihood of crashes that cause serious injury or death as determined by road engineers, rather than your wildly inaccurate perspective about what is the "right" speed for a particular road.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

Obviously it's not a coincidence. It's also not a conspiracy.

It's road engineers looking at crash data and determining that people are consistently getting injured and killed on a section of road and a lower speed limit and better enforcement are needed.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Autobahn : Portions of the German highway network on which there are no speed limits in certain highly controlled locations (e.g.: rural, few interchanges, etc...). Note that there are portions of the autobahn that have speed limits. Shocking, I know. Also shocking is that every road is not the autobahn, take, for instance, the road running in front of your average elementary school. Road? check. Speed limit? check. Traffic cameras to catch speeding jerks endangering the lives of children? i sure hope so.

The irony of the destruction of speed cameras is that it was revenue from their government that installed them ... and revenue from their government that will replace them. So, all they are really doing is lighting a match to their own pocketbook. Good show, guys. Really bright.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[b0s0z0ku]

Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers. Outside of a few Western states, they're set so that people exceed them by 5-10 mph, giving police an excuse to stop and run the IDs of virtually anyone in a car. That's one of the reasons police unions opposed higher limits, since it removed "probable cause" to look for drugs or 90% of the other bullshit that American cops do.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[UperPoti]

"speed" has never killed. We are all "speed"ing around the sun at about 67,000 mph. The change in the change of velocity is much more critical to predicting survival for individuals in auto accidents. The technical term is "jerk". This is different from [de|a]cceleration. We are all accelerating toward the center of the earth at 9.8 m/s^2, which is about a 21.922 mph or 35.28 kmph change per second. Note that the record for highest G-force on a roller coaster is 6.3G, which occurred for a few seconds and is about 138 mph per second. The maximum pressure on different parts of an individuals body is even more predictive of mortality and injury thus the use of test dummies.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dunkelfalke]

What is there to explain?
Accidents on the autobahn look like this.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dunkelfalke]

Except in this case it is not impossible not to be a lawbreaker and if so many people violate the laws it is only because so many people are arseholes.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Sometimes speed limits are set based on the road. Other times they're set based on the limits of the state law. There is a road I drive several times a week where the speed limit is 70mph. That was 55mph for a long time. The road didn't magically become 15mph safer one day.

Most of the speed limits I see now are pretty reasonable for the slightly below average driver in the slightly below average car. That's why most people are comfortable going slightly faster than them. If the speed limits went away, 95% of people I drive around would probably increase their speed by ten percent and be just as unlikely to make a mistake as they are now. What I'm unsure of is how many people are idiots who would drive dramatically more recklessly versus those who already do. There's always that one driver that drives like a drug dealer fleeing the cops. My hunch is there would be more of those to the detriment of everyone else.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[swillden]

[outside perspective here, I live in the US] The autobahn is a limited access freeway system designed specifically for high speed with strictly enforced laws that are implemented to avoid crashes (no riding in the left lane, for instance)

Also, only about half of it has no speed limit, and even those portions have an "advisory speed limit" of 130 kph (~80 mph). It's not illegal to exceed this speed, but if you exceed it and there's an accident you're presumed to have acted unreasonably for purposes of any liability evaluation.

In addition, since we're talking about speed cameras, though, it should be pointed out that those are rarely, if ever, used on limited access highways, so the autobahn is a red herring.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

In my area they would shorten green lights to 1 second on busy roads with no side streets to cause multi-hour delays, then they'd ticket drivers in the thousands who reasonably treated the signal as malfunctioning.

I hope this is an exaggeration. If not, do you have any articles on the subject? That seems like it would be a situation where pitchforks and torches would show up at the governors house.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[lexman098]

It's not taxation, it's effectively government supported rent seeking from the corporations that own the cameras. Whether or not I speed on public roads shouldn't determine the amount of corporate welfare they receive.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[ShanghaiBill]

Explain the autobahn.

When I drove on the Autobahn, it was so congested that I averaged about 40km/hr.

It was as bad as I-405 in Los Angeles.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think happens when everybody obeys the limit and tax revenue falls?

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think more does need to be said about the American Left's cultural imperialism.

Sorry about your cultural hangups caused by slavery, but my country never had slavery. That's you.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[BringsApples]

In actuality, the speed limits are set either by a standard for that environment (school zones, and such), or they're set by people that survey they area, called collectors or arterials.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 100% sure that you'll be singing a different tune if you are ever placed into the unfortunate position of needing to prove that you weren't speeding. Because when it comes to speed cameras and red light cameras, you're guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

Setting speed limits in the US tends to be done by politicians, not by engineers.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? How would politicians do this? Do you imagine that speed limits on individual roads are set by legislatures? How would this possibly even work?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dfghjk]

Your comment amounts to "as long as your victimizing someone else I'm cool with it". Not a good look.

Imagine a society that's paid for on the backs of the poor by telling them they are criminals and levying fines on them. Sounds like a society you prefer and that says a lot about you.

Also keep in mind that when faced with a revenue shortfall, the "posted speed limit" is lowered until you're a tax payer too. That's how it works now at least in the US and sounds like it works that way in France, too. It's not that way in many places where people see the problem with your selfish way of thinking.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[b0s0z0ku]

Only a few Northeastern states (other than MD/DC/VA) have them, and their use is generally limited to school zones. California also prohibits them. They're typiclaly used more in "low tax" states as a substitute for taxation.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dfghjk]

It appears you know that you openly advocate for a "fucked up place" then. If you don't know that this is exactly how it works, you need to shut up and learn something.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

It's not just about that, though. The vast majority of crashes aren't caused by people driving idiotically; they're caused by a momentary lapse of attention or a misjudgement or a tire slipping etc. And they are a lot more serious at 40 than 30, because KE equals half m v squared.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dfghjk]

Sounds like you have no personal experience then. A better lawyer cannot change the law or how the courts work. He may know how play corrupt parts of the system but that's even worse.

No lawyer, BTW, would say you can't challenge it, only that you'll lose.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

google "red light camera short yellow". The salon article near the top gives multiple examples where it has been demonstrated the yellow was shortened. So yes, as a source of revenue they do shorten the yellow. Welcome to public/private partnerships.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

something something graduated licensing and mandatory training.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

In my and friends' anecdotes [USA], it is a civil fine not a motor vehicle violation so doesn't affect ones insurance costs. Without any insurance fees, it is *far* cheaper to pay the fine (US$60-120) than to bring any kind of action. Especially considering travel and lodging if it's not local. Is it fair? Well, at least it's not overtly discriminatory, traffic cams don't pull people over for DWB -- Driving While Black.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dfghjk]

Very much state-specific. The OP should not say "in the US". Also, in my state you have a constitutional right to "face your accuser" which should invalidate all forms of automated ticketing. They are used anyway. How law enforcement dodges this clear constitutional issue IDK since I've never faced the issue.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[thomn8r]

It's road engineers looking at crash data and determining that people are consistently getting injured and killed on a section of road and a lower speed limit and better enforcement are needed.

Now that's funny!

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Thelasko]

Of all kinds of taxation, I'd prefer the speed cameras, because I can avoid paying by sticking to the posted speed limit.

Would you feel the same way if the government began lowering the speed limits? From TFA:

Speed limits in France were already controversial after the government lowered the limit on many main roads from 90km/h to 80km/h (50mph) early last year.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[LynnwoodRooster]

Let's pass a law that posting on Slashdot will incur a fine because we think it's better for people to do something else.

I am cool with that, as long as the law applies to ACs only...

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Vitriol Angst]

This is the WORST way to raise money. The problem is it is a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The taxes usually fall on the people least able to pay the fines -- or to protest them. The average citizen is happy because their taxes go down. The law enforcement group finds that it is harder to get tax money and easier to raise fines -- so they raise fines and eventually, more laws are enforced more tightly. So maybe someone is 2 miles over the posted speed limit. It becomes a revenue generating system rather than something that society needs to enforce to be happy and prosperous. Enforcement becomes just a revenue collection scheme so there can be police so they can enforce so they can collect revenue so pay for police and gadgets so they can enforce and fine.

Pretty soon you live in a neighborhood that has some shuttered doors because someone couldn't pay their fines. And nobody calls the cops when someone gets shot and nobody is a witness because they are alienated from a system they don't trust. Things break down but selective enforcement will mean that they are going after the crimes that bring in easy revenue. They don't actually want crime to go down -- just more opportunity for enforcement. Easier to lie on the stats.

You will learn that the system is working. Families and neighborhoods will be destroyed. Taxes will be low.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious argument for this position is that there are a dozen other ways to reduce traffic speeds and increase safety that do not involve issuing speeding tickets. If all roads except interstates were flush with tight traffic circles and big speed lumps I would be simply delighted.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[PPH]

modern machines with anti-roll, traction controlled, ABS, collision avoidance, curtain airbagged modern marvels.

Wait a minute! These are French cars we're talking about.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Vitriol Angst]

The courts are overburdened so we can't afford to have a fair trial for every incident!

Funny, you would think with traffic court packed to the gills and them rubber stamping a case per minute there would be enough funds to pay for more courts and more judges.

Oh, but all those funds had to go to bullet proof vests because the criminals have gotten oh so desperate.

The only people who seem to pay for crimes in this country are the people doing stuff that seems harmless.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[AmiMoJo]

Unless they try to trick you into speeding. Say with a two lane open road that is normally 100 kph, then suddenly goes down to 80 with poor signage and the camera hidden behind a wall.

I think people would be mostly okay with speed cameras if they appeared to be honest attempts to reduce road accidents.

Also the mobile ones are just random number generates, totally worthless.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

That's why stretches of highway will go from 65mph to 35 when going through a small town in places like central LA.

You mean it isn't safe for highway traffic to flow as fast in a populated area? Holy shit, stop the presses, this must be some kind of conspiracy! Literally every highway (and I'm not talking about limited access freeways) I have ever been on lowers speed limits when you enter a city vs rural. Every single one.

This is not a revenue thing, this is a safety thing. The fact that these speed change zones are prime locations for speed cameras (or police officers) is completely logical. On ever road, prior to speed limit changes there are signs that say "speed limit XX ahead" with plenty of time for you to slow down before you get there. I've been busted before when I've missed a speed change, so I understand people's frustrations, but you know what happened next time I drove past that area? I slowed the fuck down when I was supposed to.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pascoea]

Yes, you, I and everyone on this site is aware that they have shortened yellow lights. It is 100% a dick move, and should be stopped. I should have been more specific asking if GP had references to green lights being shortened to 1 second.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a good boy, so I'll never find myself under the boot"
Naive. Incredibly naive.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[ranton]

So your ability to obey the posted speed limit is somehow tied to your wealth?

Who ever said it was? Speed limit fines are regressive because they are a flat amount, unlike progressive taxes which are based on either income or wealth. A progressive traffic fine would charge a poor person $10 and a wealthy person $10k.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[mrbester]

It's fun, fun, fun.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[hey!]

Traffic engineering is a better approach to doing that.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[UperPoti]

Whoever marked my comment as a troll is a coward and provided no evidence for anything in my reply as factually incorrect.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how in the US you have no right to challenge the payment in court if you think the device is broken

THE ABOVE IS UTTER BULLSHIT.

And you imbeciles modded the OP up. That is a sad comment on the low quality of discourse here.

LGW : you need to shut the fuck up and quit writing misinformation, bitch.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dryeo]

Here in BC, a couple of years ago the government increased the speed limit on some highways, from 100-110 to 130 km/h IIRC. This year they decreased over half back down due to the increase in number of accidents. These were mostly limited access highways.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Oswald McWeany]

If you told me you never break the speed limit, I wouldn't believe you. (Almost) everyone does.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[thegarbz]

Funny how often that happens.

It almost sounds like you are making a snide comment about the government rather than the speed cameras. From this we can conclude that the speed cameras aren't actually your problem.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[lgw]

The loophole is that it's not a criminal offense, nor a civil action. It's an administrative fee, more or less. It's not obvious how to close that loophole.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[lgw]

Did she go to court, or use some administrative process?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dryeo]

Here in BC, the government, eg people elected to the legislature, decided to up the speed limits on a bunch of highways a few years back. Now a different government has looked at the crash statistics and once again the elected officials decided to lower about half of those speed limits back down.
While I assume the engineers were involved, it was political decisions, first to pander for votes by raising speed limits and then to lower them again to save lives (money).
Both health and vehicle insurance is run by the Province. And of course these were Provincial highways.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[lgw]

Fair enough, but we can live without speed cameras. It's much less obvious how to fix the problems with government.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Hit a nerve, did he? Such salty, salty tears you weep, American kid.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dryeo]

A lot are weather related. Pissing rain and people don't slow down. Snowing and people don't slow down.
Shit, I avoid driving in the snow even with good tires and a 4x4 because there are so many idiots tailgating and driving way too fast for conditions (windy roads) because they don't seem to understand that 4 wheel drive doesn't help you stop faster and doesn't make cornering much better in very slippery conditions.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dryeo]

Here in BC, there seem to be more and more of the flashing type of signs. Some have smiley or frowning faces, others have your speed flashing. No ticketing. It does seem to help slow traffic, it does with me.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, shut the fuck up.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Freischutz]

Problem is that the greater the speed in an accident the more likely someone is to be seriously injured or killed. Further the *PUBLIC* roads are just that a shared public resource.

Your rights to go as fast as you want stop at my nose.

Get back to me when you are a happy for killing someone in an accident to be treated as murder.

In the meantime speeding is a crime, and speed cameras only punish those who choose to recklessly endanger other people for their convenience and/or pleasure.

I would share your view (about the existence of speed limits anyway, if not of cameras) if speed limits in the US were reasonable, and if enforcement were uniform.

Instead, the reality (and everyone knows it) is that speed limits are set too low, and therefore almost everybody speeds an "acceptable" amount, except for a few antisocial types who think they are doing good by driving under the limit but who actually create danger through the high speed differentials that they create.

The problem goes beyond a few 'aristocrats'. There are several neighbourhoods in the city I live in that are used by commuters to bypass massive congestions during business hours. These residential streets literally have a speed bump every 80-100m because otherwise kids, pedestrians and residents getting in and out of their car would be mown down and vehicles backing out of drive ways would get T-boned on a regular basis by people driving at highway speeds through residential areas. The same basically applies to highways. I have zero sympathy for some speed demon who kills himself by wrapping his car around a bridge pylon at 190 km/h, I do very much care about the family of 5 whose plans for the day did not include having the tangled wreck of that asshole's car come flying through their front windshield after it bounced off the bridge pylon. I've seen some amazing traffic accidents in my time, including a Porsche that managed to fly across the left hand lane, across the central separator island and into oncoming traffic (don't ask me how he did that, I drove past the scene after it happened) and a Toyota Landcruiser that somehow managed to drive up a a vertical concrete bridge pylon until it ended up sitting on it's back door on the ground and it's nose pointing skyward. Speed limits are there for a reason.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Dr_Terminus]

Good example of why the Autobahn is safer. It is illegal to pass on the right, which means you can only pass on the left. Furthermore, you can only be in left lanes if passing, so as soon as there is space on the right, you need to move over. Refusing to leave the left lane to allow a faster vehicle to pass is a finable offense.

In any case, get over yourself. You are not the police, and you have no right to try and enforce the laws on the road. In fact, your pig-headed behavior makes things less safe for everyone else!

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[hey!]

Speed cameras are obviously something a police state would endorse, but in themselves they do not police state make.

Speed cameras, restricted to stretches of road with histories of speed-related accidents, are entirely reasonable and legitimate. But ubiquitous speed cameras are manifestation of a certain brand of anti-government politics that's all for cutting taxes but balks at actually cutting spending enough to live within the reduced revenues. Genuine libertarianism is a respectable political philosophy, but this kind of half-assed pseudo-libertarianism posturing leaves municipalities little choice but to monetize law enforcement.

There are municipalities in the US that get a large chunk of their operating revenues from police fines -- 10,12, even 15% or more. If you want to contest that fine, you do it in a municipal court that gets its funding entirely from fines. There are towns with barely a thousand residents that run their own municipal courts, because that's where get the majority of their revenue. In that court, the judge who hears your case today and the lawyer who is representing the city will often be switching roles tomorrow in a different town's municipal court. In other words, the system is rigged.

The people who live in these places think of government as a hostile, predatory force, and they're right. But they don't see how their unwillingness to either do without or pay for government services makes that happen. Sitting here in my high tax state, in my town that gets less than 1% of its revenue from police fines, sure; I'd like my taxes to be lower. But we don't have traffic cameras everywhere; if a cop pulls me over for a violation and I'm reasonably polite and what I did wasn't too bad, I'll probably get a friendly warning. If I do get a ticket and I contest it, I'll get a hearing in front of an actual judge who had to be approved by the legislature, and if it happens to be in a "municipal" court that court is actually run by the state, and gets none of its funding from the fines it is adjudicating.

Sure I'd like a tax cut, but if you offered me a chance to pay *no* taxes in return for becoming prey for a predatory police force, the answer would be no, thank you.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also against the US Constitution, but for some reason no one seems to care how they violate ones right to face ones accuser as guaranteed by the 6th amendment.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Kielistic]

In Ontario the unwritten rule is 10 over in town, 20 over on a normal highway, 30-40 on the the big split highways.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Built-up area: 5mph
Country road: 10mph
Motorway: 20mph

Now what?

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Kielistic]

If you want to drive slower why don't you just move over with the other people that want to drive slower? Is your desire to drive 0.5km/h faster than them somehow more important than the people that want to drive 10km/h faster than you? Entitled ass indeed.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dryeo]

Not every car on the highway is modern and well maintained. If 25% of cars are not safe speeding and go the speed limit, it creates problems due to the uneven speeds of vehicles.
I've also observed that a lot of people, probably the majority, are idiots about slowing down when road conditions change. People still going 80 MPH in the pissing rain or snow. Enforcing lower limits corrects for this as well.
Most people think they're better then average drivers, which can't be true. Often, they are good drivers but some days, not so much. being tired probably equals having a couple of beers. being preoccupied and such also lowers peoples driving skill.
They tried raising speed limits on a bunch of highways here. Now they've lowered them on half due to the increase in accidents that happened with the higher limits.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerk, or difference in acceleration of one part of your body relative to other parts? In the end, a body ceases to function due to these differentials interfering with itâ(TM)s bodyâ(TM)s ability to function that kills (ignoring mechanisms other than those derived from changes of position). Jerk applied uniformly across the body mass should be no more of an issue than acceleration so applied (gravity).

Aside: I donâ(TM)t buy the 9.8ms acceleration due to gravity. Thatâ(TM)s the acceleration component of gravitational force, but itâ(TM)s countered by the force exerted back by the surface beneath us. The resulting acceleration is notably less than 9.8ms. Very few people are actually experiencing free fall. And again, that acceleration is effectively uniform across the entire body.

Last note here: magnitude matters. 1G acceleration isnâ(TM)t all that much. Itâ(TM)s unlikely to kill someone, even if applied non-uniformly (day, walking into something solid, where the acceleration impacts the bidyâ(TM)s surface, before the internals). You can experience even sustained acceleration at that rate without serious consequences (10mps^2 = 36kph/s = 22.5mph/s ~= 0-60mph in 3 seconds). Youâ(TM)ll feel it, but a âoegentleâ rocket launch will pull 3Gs at peak, and generally experience more than 1G for several minutes.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

You found the real issue, he cares more about his time and money than other peoples safety.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[UperPoti]

The "difference in acceleration" of one part of the body relative to other [body] parts would be measured as jerk, but that jerk so defined is rarely correlated with injury in auto accidents, rather the jerk measured relative to body [parts] and the vehicle. Ergo, arms are not usually broken by hitting other arms, but rather the vehicle's dashboard or windshield, which are harder. It was never said that jerk is the "cause" of mortality or injury. Jerk applied uniformly across a body mass is most certainly a better predictor of injury and mortality than acceleration so applied. The amount of jerk experienced by drivers is controlled by the drivers unlike the acceleration experienced from the fundamental forces. Magnitude certainly matters and the net magnitude matters even more.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Rockoon]

What an idiot you are.

Speed limits are set by noisy people, busy-bodies, and the politicians pandering to them.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Rockoon]

The real solution for your school zone are inexpensive speed bumps.

The bullshit solution is speed cameras.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

If 80% of drivers exceed the speed limit, that is a vote against the speed limit.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Rockoon]

The autobahn is a limited access freeway system designed specifically for high speed

The department of redundancy department would like to inform you that freeways are designed for high speed, not just the subset you want to claim are the only ones designed for high speed.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Rockoon]

Go watch your town council in action some time. This is EXACTLY the stuff they mainly concern themselves with.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty well documented that what actually happened was the engineers set the limits back when the highway system was first established then politicians started mucking with them.

Things like the 20mph limit in residential areas is due to risk of injury to pedstrians in a crash. And any of the yellow signs with a limit for a given turn are there based on the rick of toppling over. But whether a given stretch of highway has 45, 55, 65, or 75 as it's limit is determined by politicians of the "i have a special stick I use to cast votes on otehr people's terminals when they aren't looking" level of integrity (state legislatures).

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

if you actually obey the speed limit you are a danger to those around you. Speed does not kill. Speed differentials kill.

Today everyone pretty much breaks the law with impunity. There are so many laws on the books that it is actually impossible to not be a law breaker. The man likes to write more and more laws so he can make more and more money. Everyone drives 5 or 10 miles over the limit. It is accepted. To not do so, you are impeding the flow of traffic and creating a hazard. However the man likes his money so he will add a speed camera to punish these evil law breakers.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

When ~75% of people see no problem with breaking the law, it's not the people who are wrong, it's the law.

Such a huge majority could easily replace the elected officials controlling the speed limits. I question your numbers.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

There absolutely is science done and engineering applied to determine the correct speed limit for various stretches of road. The assertion is that this data is discarded in favor of lower limits to gain revenue. As an example, where I live, we have one town where any rural road is 25mph, while the adjacent town posts limits on the same roads of 35-45mph. In the town with the higher limit, there is actually logic to where the lower speed zones are, but the other town just wants to be able to extract revenue when needed (as the average speed of traffic in both towns tends towards the Science Town limits).

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your "the problem is upstream" theory. On paper, it's quite true.

Now, which do you think is the realistic goal

- Solve: creating a government superior than the entire species has achieved in all of history, continue using current camera presence
- Solve: presence of cameras, continue using current government

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[UperPoti]

Intent is a critical component of deciding justice. No intent to cause harm with speeding and drunk driving. Firing into a crowd of people and attempted murder imply intent to harm.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Guybrush_T]

Add a couple of speed cameras along the way and all will drive at the speed limit within weeks. That's exactly what happened in France 10 years ago.

Some speed cameras seem to be only for making money, but as a general side effect, more drivers in France tend to follow the speed limits now, so if you want to drive at the speed limit, you might be able to do so without causing a major slowdown in the flow (as was the case before).

Speed limits in France are quite high on highways, but the current government lowered them recently on normal roads to 80 km/h (was 90km/h since 1973) which is mostly impacting people living in the country side. This is very hard for some drivers not used to look at their speed and relying on their habit, and causing them to very quickly loose their license hence hating speed cameras.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha ha ha, now say it in a Southern Gentlemen accent. You're one of a kind, shilly. Great name.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you under the impression that speed limits are just made up at random? Or are you actually aware that there are scientific methods, formulas, and guidelines used by engineers to determine what the proper speed for a particular stretch of road should be?

Having worked a bit in traffic engineering, I can tell you, design speed limit is almost always higher than posted speed limit (very, very, rarely, they match).

The key point though, is the design speed is generally governed by average performance characteristics of the largest vehicles traveling on a given stretch. As such, those that are in an ordinary passenger car, or in performance equipment would have design speeds well in excess of posted limits (they would probably be governed by tire grip for horizontal curves for normal passenger cars, (possibly a 155mph speed governor for performance vehicles on long sweepers); sight lines+braking performance for vertical curves.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

modern cars yes. modern people are dipshits who shouldnt be behind the wheel though.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing, isn't it, how fast speeders rationalize their speed, and claim they are the victims? Leveling accusations of mass extortion and profiteering without a shred of evidence to back it up, believing they are just better drivers.

This is why government and taxes are needed. To protect against a populace that can't see outside their own and truly victimize others because of their own ego and limited view.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.

If the speed limit was actually chosen by examining road conditions, type of vehicular traffic and visibility that might be sound argument. In my neck of the woods they measure what speed people are actually travelling, pick the 85th percentile, round down and say that's the limit. If everyone followed the limit, we would continually be decreasing the posted on each measurement. They "expect" that 15% of the population will exceed the limit.

Besides, your vehicle doesn't crumple or flip over upon exceeding this arbitrary limit. Speeding doesn't cause accidents. Loss of vehicle control does. Since we don't give a crap about the skill of anyone behind their two-ton killing machine we just assume that they'll lose vehicle control over a certain speed since it's an easy measurement to obtain without even needing someone present.

When speeding penalties resemble DUI penalties then we know that someone actually cares. Speeding is a cash cow, nothing more.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[fgouget]

I know how fast I can drive safely.

You are no different from everyone else then. Everyone knows how fast they can drive. Everyone drives better than the majority of other drivers. Etc.

If I'm in error, charge me when I do so. Don't charge me for a crime I didn't commit.

They do: you're charged for endangering the life of others. Or would you want a plane pilot to not be charged for being drunk on the job until he's crashed the plane with every one on board?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is so, why does the speed limit change from 40 to 25 back to 40 on the same size road, houses same distance from the street, and no schools, just because the imaginary municipal line changes? The speed reduction was engineered all right, but not for what you seem to think.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[fgouget]

Simple solutions for simple minds. The speed limit on most highways is too low. Modern cars a requite capable; they handle and stop very well.

Modern cars may be more capable but how much has the performance of the most important piece of equipment of the car increased in the past century? The one that is hardest to replace. The driver's brain.

Simple minds indeed...

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's for criminal law. For administrative law, there are no bill of rights-like rules.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, some states allow for citizen's arrest. In fact, there are states where if the police are not present, they have to deputize a witness into arresting someone on their behalf. Otherwise, they would have to go before a judge and get a warrant.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all kinds of taxation, I'd prefer the speed cameras, because I can avoid paying by sticking to the posted speed limit.

That's what they all say, until they get their frst unfair ticket.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[thesupraman]

So, cars have god significantly safer in many ways, both in their ability to avoid an accident and their ability to protect you in an accident..
And they dropped the speed limit in many areas?

Just perhaps that is one of the reasons people see the cameras as revenue generating systems, and are attacking them?

I have driven a lot in France, and outside the large cities, people are generally pretty good drivers.
The speed cameras however are often rather obviously positioned to make money, not reduce danger.
(3/4 down a long straight downhill section, with a passing lane after a long piece of no-passing road, etc..)

At first they tended to be quite clear, well sign posted, and in dangerous locations - that lasted about long enough for people to accept them, and then it changes..

What a surprise.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Waccoon]

There may be scientific research behind speed limits, but that data may be interpreted at random. Some of my local areas have a speed limit of 25 while others are 45, and some are strictly enforced and others aren't. Some speed limits aren't updated for decades, either.

Re: Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[mapkinase]

Speed limits are correlated with real danger of speeding, but cameras are anti correlated.

Speed traps are zones where there is a speed limit lowering without any reason or some kind of laughable reason. In the past, cops used to hang there to make their monthly quota of tickets. Nowadays it's speed cameras.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

Yup. And everyone thinks they're better at driving than they are

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[shilly]

What's your source for that? Boundless life experience, your fetid prejudices, or have you got some links to evidence that shows this?

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[dunkelfalke]

I am a cyclist, overweight and using a full suspension mtb. I can't break the speed limit even if I wanted to.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live the speed limits are definitely not set by engineers. As a most basic example, one of the roads I commuted on a few years ago had a speed limit of 45 MPH for most of its length, which is reasonable. Completely flat, almost completely straight, no pedestrians, very low density of driveways or side streets. A large ditch runs on either side of the road, and the few buildings you see are built well beyond that ditch.

With no change in the road layout or surroundings, there is inexplicably about a mile and a half long segment in the middle where the speed limit drops from 45 MPH to 35 MPH. Well - inexplicable from an engineer's standpoint. From a jackboot's standpoint, it's very explicable. What happens is everyone goes through the 35 MPH zone at 45 to 50 MPH. Now, you have free reign to declare anyone on this road as a criminal. You've got free reign to stop them, search their vehicle, and steal anything you find in it through "asset forfeiture". And that's just what's within your rights legally. Once you factor in the corrupt "justice system", you can usually even kill the guy you pull over. All at your discretion...

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, assuming the device isn't calibrated poorly or not working as it should.

Then again consider how these camera type solutions end up being money makers by design. Here in Canada some towns have set up cameras at traffic lights to catch people running red lights and the like. Great idea for safety right?

Oh if only. People just had to listen to the politicians to see what was really on their mind, with how often they would chirp about how much revenue these cameras would pull in for their town.

And that's when people started noticing that the orange light phase of lights suddenly started getting shorter. And then accidents starting going up as people would refuse to go through the intersection if the orange light hit since they knew they didn't have time to get through no matter what. Unfortunately this results in a lot of sudden stops and the occasional car pile up in worse cases.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Pig Hogger]

Nice pile-up. Gotta love how they numbered the cars involved

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as easy as you might think, in New Zealand I got a speeding ticket for doing 53km/h in a 50km/h zone and I can assure you it was unintentional, the only way it could be avoided would be to look solely at the speedo and not the road - which is a major safety issue.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically you are not legally obliged to pay an automated fine, at least in my state. I got a camera speeding ticket almost a year ago, and just threw it in the trash. I got a follow up letter, with stern wording about how my $50 fine has increased to $80. I threw it in the trash. Then I got a letter from a collections agency, saying my total deliquent amount is $300, and I'd better pay up or... they can't put it on my credit or actually do anything about it legally. So I promptly through that in the trash.

disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The general frequent disruptions is why I always budget a lot extra when I have anything related to France in a project. Too many disruptions lead to higher cost and lower reliability. This just ends up costing jobs.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[bistromath007]

Evidently, they believe there are more important things than having a job. It'd be nice if Americans thought that way.

Re:disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, less jobs means less taxes means politicians don't get to steal as much so it induces them to change. Nothing better than a bit of fear of the people for politicians to do their jobs better.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[rastos1]

Some of them do. See: the Trump's Wall.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[b0s0z0ku]

It's starting -- NYC is looking at universal health insurance and mandatory (2 weeks for now) paid vacation for all employees. And as go New York and California, goes the entire country eventually. Expanding the safety net and giving people free time outside of work will give people time to think, maybe even protest a bit :)

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[cascadingstylesheet]

Evidently, they believe there are more important things than having a job. It'd be nice if Americans thought that way.

Such as? What other annoyances should they be able to take into their own hands, simply because they are willing to be violent and antisocial about it?

There are times for civil disobedience, but I'm not sure "I don't like speed cameras" is such a grand principle as to make it worth it.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Give people free shit. still not enough still protest anything that isn't "progressive" enough.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[b0s0z0ku]

NOT being violent and anti-social sometimes means taking whatever abuse a greedy government is able to dish out lying down. Being violent and anti-social have their place -- I bet the British called the American colonists by the same epiphets. This wasn't a question of speed cameras -- this is a question of the Macron government raising taxes on everyone while giving the rich and corporations tax breaks. aka disproportionally soaking the poor and middle classes.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[kilfarsnar]

Some of them do. See: the Trump's Wall.

Very few people who are going without pay actually support it to get the wall. What Trump's wall actually represents is his willingness to let hundreds of thousands of people suffer because he can't get his way.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[b0s0z0ku]

Better to give the average working person "free shit" than only giving mega-corporations and defense contractors "free shit." (Wars paid for at public expense, corrupt defense contracts, tax breaks for moving to a city.)

The rich have been getting "free shit" for decades in the US; why are you so against the rest of the people getting a bit of a leg up?

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Vitriol Angst]

Well, getting laid off can be a death sentence in the good old USA - so it stands to reason that it takes a lot more to motivate Americans to protest.

What I see often is stories like this; the Panama Papers finally have an arrest -- the journalist who truthfully brought some attention to the evil being done.

Whereas I remember a few years ago that in France, they actually kidnapped a CEO of a company and protested for higher wages. No charges were filed. I think that is fucking enlightened if you ask me.

You don't want cameras spying on your every move as a pretense to security from a government that is not transparent? Tear them down!

Of course, in the USA, they'll just pony up a few billion and do this from satellite - and they are already probably doing it and just don't tell us to solve petty things like murders and crime and missing children. It's more important to control the citizens for protection of the Oligarchy than for the protection of the citizens.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[bistromath007]

It would be easier to list what political violence isn't justified. We haven't lived in a functional republic for nearly a century.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[apoc.famine]

Decades? You're not familiar with US history then. Check out how much the railroad industry paid for their infrastructure and the land it lies on some time. Or the mining, logging, ranching, or farming industries.

Re:disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Actually, I do RTFA]

France's unemployement rate seems fine. If this ends up costing jobs, but people have jobs, did it really cost anything? Also, why is having a slightly better job worth a significantly lower quality of life the rest of the time?

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

or congress's willingness to let hundreds of thousands of people suffer because they can't get their way. it takes two to tango.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it represents Congress's greed. They don't have to create or pass omnibus budgets. For most of their existence they voted on funding in small pieces based on the merits of each need. Creating one fat budget that you can then use to punish people who don't vote the way you want is a relatively new thing (the 90's/early 2000s).
 
It's just easy to say "orange man bad uh huh huh huh!" than to put genuine thought into it.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot air... filthy statist.

Re: disruptions lead to loss of jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

The Toddler-in-Cheif is just throwing a temper tantrump! If Trump's wall even could be built, it will cost more like 70 to 100 billion...and thats not counting all of the lawsuits from people who would have their land stolen to build the wall on! And ultimately, such a wall will never be effective in the least. A ladder or a rope and a hook, and it can be climbed over. It can be tunneled under. It can be flown over. And we could never afford the number of people and camera systems that would be needed to keep watch on every meter of the wall at all times.

Toddler Trump doesn'r care that he is making people suffer for no good reason. He does not care about the effects on the economy.

speed cameras are a revenue source

[rbgnr111]

I agree with their view on speed cameras. Most cities use them as a huge revenue source.
Along with that, most are placed in areas where lower income people are. More than likely because they don't have the money or power to fight against it.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[religionofpeas]

Along with that, most are placed in areas where lower income people are. More than likely because they don't have the money or power to fight against it.

Really ? How much money does it cost to drive slower ?

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Your seriously jaded... I suspect because you speed and thus the camera's catch you regularly!

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[drinkypoo]

"Really ? How much money does it cost to drive slower ?"

Dunno, how much is your life worth to you? How much of it do you spend commuting? The poorer someone is, the more time they have to spend commuting, due to nimbyism. Refusing to build housing where jobs are therefore represents a theft of time from the poor.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Roughly for me $200/hr.

Speeding didn't exist until the insanity of the 70s oil shock.

Prior to that people mostly drove the road speed, which is roughly 20-30mph greater than the "speed limits" that were brought into being in the 70s.

Prior to that, excessive speed in the judgment of an officer was "reckless driving".

A much more sane standard.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[91degrees]

You can probably afford the speeding tickets then.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was grammar cameras...

1) You're, not your.

2) cameras, not camera's.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[religionofpeas]

My commute varies, but even when it's long, it's cheaper just to stay under the speed limit. It saves gas too.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[b0s0z0ku]

I have no problem with them in cities -- traffic which mixes with pedestrians and cyclists shouldn't really exceed 30 mph, and most cameras are set to trip at 35-40 mph. Also, better to get a $50 ticket from a camera than spend half an hour interacting with an armed revenue agent (aka a cop), who might also go on a fishing expedition, search your car, and plant something.

The problem is camera use on highways where traffic doesn't mix with other road users, and speed limits are set below the safe speed of traffic.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

I know how fast I can drive safely. I'm not stupid.

Like 100% of all drivers until they get into an accident.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Roughly for me $200/hr.

Speeding didn't exist until the insanity of the 70s oil shock.

Prior to that people mostly drove the road speed, which is roughly 20-30mph greater than the "speed limits" that were brought into being in the 70s.

Prior to that, excessive speed in the judgment of an officer was "reckless driving".

A much more sane standard.

All of us can put a price tag on an hour of our time. Based on your logic, Jeff Bezos should be allowed to drive a rocket-powered car down the freeway to get to work, safety be damned. We're talking about driving legally and reasonably here. Is the cost of your life or someone else's worth a few minutes every commute? I hope you're not arrogant enough to think so.

And we are now legally driving 20-30MPH faster than the "double-nickel" 55MPH days. Driving faster than that is quickly delving into the realm of reckless and dangerous, especially considering A) inexperienced/eldery/drunk drivers, B) the other 90% who are distracted texting addicts, and C) the sheer fucking volume of cars on roads today.

Automotive death historical rates say a lot here. It's not exactly getting safer out there.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[drinkypoo]

My commute varies, but even when it's long, it's cheaper just to stay under the speed limit. It saves gas too.

Someone with a two hour commute (which is not uncommon) can save substantial time per year by speeding, if they don't get caught or crash. I didn't ask you about fuel costs. I asked you about life costs. How much of your life are you spending commuting? For some people for whom it is a significant percentage, it's worth the risk. You're not really living if you're spending your life commuting.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[kilfarsnar]

You can probably afford the speeding tickets then.

That was the original point, right? That wealthier people have the means to fight the ticket or policy, or absorb the fines. That's why the cameras are supposedly more prevalent in poorer areas. The people there have less time and resources to fight an unpopular policy.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno.
If the lives saved by the new speed limits are around 1% and we are wasting more than an additional 1% of their daily time then the community are losing lives.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[rbgnr111]

this is exactly what I was getting at.

in the areas I'm in there are no speed cameras. Though I could easily afford to pay the $100-250 that might come from being caught on one. In most cases I had an attorney fight it, and pay them in the end rather than the local government.
They in no way affect the way I drive, unless I know of one, where I slow down a bit for that area, then go right back to the the normal whatever speed I feel like going.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[rbgnr111]

even that you can get out of with a good attorney.
I once passed a cop going around 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Not only did I not have to come in to court. My attorney took care of everything for me, and about $700 later (to my attorney), the whole thing went away. Nothing on my driving record, and no reckless driving or speeding conviction.

I'm more of the belief that a lot of these laws are put in place to relieve the poor of their money, and fund local government entities. Anybody who has enough to fight, even when clearly in the wrong, can in a lot of cases get out of it.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[dfghjk]

It could cost everything if everyone was as "smart" as you. It's funny how, over and over, your solution is stick the problem on someone else. You're delighted as long as it's someone else is getting the ticket.

How well does your answer work when everywhere is reduced to a school zone? You do realize that roads are for transportation, right? Artificial speed limits to generate revenue, which you think is great since you're too smart to pay, are clearly contrary to the entire purpose of the infrastructure. Roads are for getting places, not for playing games.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[MBGMorden]

Like 100% of all drivers until they get into an accident.

You know what's funny? I constantly have to have this argument with an 8 year old. Every time she does something dangerous and I tell her not to her response is "I do it all the time and never get hurt.". And the response is the same: you always did things lots of times without getting hurt . . . until you get hurt.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[MBGMorden]

I wish there was grammar cameras...

1) You're, not your.

2) cameras, not camera's.

*I wish there were grammar cameras . . .

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[dfghjk]

Depends on what the speed limits are. You like to pretend that's not part of the equation but it's essential to this form of taxation.

Also, it simply doesn't work this way except for sociopaths like you. People drive at speeds reasonable for prevailing conditions and drivers are consistent in their perception of safe speeds. When speed limits are reasonable, compliance is high. When limits become sufficiently low, drivers tend to ignore them. Governments exploit this when they set limits. They want an adequate supply of speeders so they deliberately set limits too low. If they aren't getting enough, they lower limits. Happens everywhere in the US.

Understanding this, it's clear to see that the cost of this is actually high. People waste time, safety is actually worse and expensive infrastructure is underutilized.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[dfghjk]

"All of us can put a price tag on an hour of our time. Based on your logic, Jeff Bezos should be allowed to drive a rocket-powered car down the freeway to get to work, safety be damned."

By who's logic do you get "safety be damned"? Even an idiot can come up with a better straw man than that.

"Is the cost of your life or someone else's worth a few minutes every commute? I hope you're not arrogant enough to think so."

Oh, the "think of the children" argument. Never mind that artificially low speed limits actually reduce safety and that "a few minutes" is really just an admission that you aren't will to even consider actual costs.

"A) inexperienced/eldery/drunk drivers, B) the other 90% who are distracted texting addicts"

Speeds of other drivers aren't the problem here.

"Automotive death historical rates say a lot here. It's not exactly getting safer out there."

Put up or shut up. It is actually getting safer out there, but let's see some data on how lower speed limits actually helps that.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I would agree. I can't speak about speeding cameras being put in low income areas, but I do know there was a city here in Texas that had red light cameras put in several places and it was making a lot of money and causing more accidents because people would over compensate for the red light cameras and slam on their breaks. I'm pretty sure they were a money making scheme because one of the city groups convinced the city council that the vast majority (can't remember the amount) of the money made should go directly to the local emergency rooms to help them with expenses and accident victims. Well guess how long those cameras lasted after that.......... They were gone roughly 6 months or so later.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[91degrees]

Those people can simply drive at the speed limit, thus avoiding the expense of fines.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

It would cost even less money to not put a speed camera up. It would be entirely more honest and make the state much more money if they would just tax rich white liberals, such as yourself, rather than putting up dozens of speed cameras in neighborhoods filled with poor hard working black conservatives. That will never happen because the speed camera programs are inevitably put in place by white doo good liberals who place the cameras in neighborhoods that do not affect themselves

White liberalism is a cancer upon our nation.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight: It's worth the risk of other people's lives so that YOU can spend less time in a vehicle?

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[fgouget]

I agree with their view on speed cameras. Most cities use them as a huge revenue source.

Cities don't get the money from speed infractions in France. So your argument does not apply to the current situation.

Along with that, most are placed in areas where lower income people are.

Source please. Applicable to the current situation, i.e. speed limits in France.

Re:speed cameras are a revenue source

[drinkypoo]

Let me get this straight: It's worth the risk of other people's lives so that YOU can spend less time in a vehicle?

In my experience, the majority of people will exceed the speed limit the majority of time that they can get away with it. Now to be fair, I only have experience driving in California, Texas, and Panama, and that last just for a few days, but that's what I've seen everywhere I've been and I've no reason to believe that most people would be substantially different anywhere else. Where the potential response from law enforcement is more significant, I'm sure the average deviation above the speed limit tends to be lower, but that doesn't speak to the speeds at which people would like to be traveling.

What I'd like is for there to be high-speed rail that serves these major commute corridors, or for there to be enough housing in the major job centers for people to live there. What I'm saying is that I don't think you can blame people for trying to claw some of their life back.

Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

To stop those speeders from killing you or your best friends.

They cost far to much.... so I doubt there is any profit from the fines.

I would have one on every street everywhere if I could.

If you don't want to be 'spied' on with them, don't speed! simple.

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Burma-Shave!

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[kackle]

Ha! Good one...

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you don't want to be 'spied' on with them, don't speed! simple.

If you don't speed you won't get FINED. Whatever you do, if that camera is there, it's possible for it to SPY on you.

Mind you, if they are going to smash something they should smash whatever tax collection agencies that exist. Destroying tax collection mechanisms is a way of getting lower taxes.

Re: Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "well if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide!" argument to surveillance and loss of rights.

Enjoy your loss of privacy...

Re: Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy on public roads

Re: Speed cameras are needed

[shilly]

Driving on the public highway is really not a private act.

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[rbgnr111]

I know this isn't a speed camera article, but being stop light one, it is similar in nature.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/judge-rules-chicago-red-light-and-speed-camera-tickets-void/

the city of Chicago had shorted yellow light times at intersections with cameras to increase revenue. I'm sure they aren't the only ones to do this.

Re: Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah really, so you you're okay being tracked every second you aren't on private property. Aka, every second you're outside your own home?

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Actually, I do RTFA]

50 mph is crazy slow for a highway. Hell, it seems pretty slow for a non-highway rural road (outside towns).

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Whorhay]

Shit, that's only the half of it.

They made national news a few years back when the city snow plows weren't clearing the right turn lanes at stop lights because that was the only place for the snow to go. The drivers just adapted as they should and made their right turns from the right most lane that wasn't blocked. The red light cameras started generating tickets like crazy because so far as they were programmed those were illegal turns. The City agreed that the tickets were issued erroneously but refused to do anything to correct the situation insisting that anyone who felt they were wronged should go to court to get the ticket thrown out. That is basically a huge "Fuck You" to anyone that got a ticket as it means either just paying the wrongly issued fine or taking time off work to go and try fighting it. What really takes the cake though is that according to the city laws authorizing the cameras every single ticket was supposed to be validated by a human police officer before being mailed out, so even that basic sanity check wasn't being done.

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Whorhay]

Are you kidding? I really can't tell if this is meant as sarcasm or not, 10/10 troll right there!

These things print money like you wouldn't believe. Almost two decades ago when these things were in their nascent stages a system would have cost $75k to $85k and maybe $5k a month to maintain. I would be surprised if the costs weren't down to around $20k by now and the maintenance costs have to be cheaper unless the system is being regularly vandalized. Anyways there are a number of red light cameras near my home and I see them go off probably 50% of the time I'm at those intersections. Even if we go with the most expensive numbers from 18 years ago, $145k for the first year of ownership and operation. A system would only need to issue 10 $40 tickets each day to turn a profit. I guarantee that any of these speed or red light systems are going to issue at least that many tickets each day just from idiot drivers that aren't paying close attention let alone people deliberately speeding or running lights. Higher fines just make the situation that much more juicy.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehic...

https://www.digitaltrends.com/...

Re:Speed cameras are needed

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs a link.

Re: Speed cameras are needed

[shilly]

1) The public highway is publicly owned, with regulation of who is allowed to drive on it, and how they must drive. Licence plates and drivers' licences are required to drive on the public highway precisely because there is not the same expectation of privacy as there is on private land.

2) Privacy isn't binary. There are degrees of loss of privacy. "Being tracked every second ... you're outside your own home" is clearly dramatically more intrusive than "having your licence plate recorded when you drive past any of the X speed cameras in your neighbourhood". And if X is 10000, that's clearly more intrusive than if X is 1.

the real problem with it

[fluffythedestroyer]

Is that the goverment keeps telling that speed cameras are about safety and for us all. The thruth is speed camera are about generating revenue ONLY. They arent transparent and telling us the truth about it, They aren't lying to us but its not honest. They should be honest about it. Speed cameras aren't going away. For example, if it was for safety they would be speed cameras at construction sites where the safety of the workers are the most vulnerable. They would also put some police car in that same area too but they aren't anything there. The speed cameras are also places at points where you have to slow down from 70 to 35 in 200 meters so something really too short. Sometimes cameras are places in roads where they no people have problems slowing down. This is not for safety. Stop bullshiting us.

Re:the real problem with it

[Alwin Henseler]

(..) from 70 to 35 in 200 meters so something really too short.

For the safety of the public, please take your car to the garage. Your brakes need fixing.

Re:the real problem with it

[Oswald McWeany]

(..) from 70 to 35 in 200 meters so something really too short.

For the safety of the public, please take your car to the garage. Your brakes need fixing.

If his car can't slow down that fast, they do need fixing; however, with that said, generally you'll see more accidents in areas where the speed limit changes frequently and dramatically. If one person slows from 70 to 35 in a short period of time, the idiot behind him who is half asleep might not notice and run into the back of him. Yeah, that would be the idiot's fault; but it's generally best not to have accidents.

Re:the real problem with it

[fluffythedestroyer]

I made up those numbers.. could be shorter, I don't know. police like to setup their radar in places where you can slow down fast enough. It been test and demonstrated multiple times with the local news as well.

Re:the real problem with it

[Anonymous Coward]

My car can slow down that fast. It is dangerous to do so if there is someone behind me.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxThere is a way arn

[prefec2]

Just don't drive too fast. Dammit.

solely a revenue-generating

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are.

Decrease in road mortality ? => this is thanks to speed cameras !

Increase in road mortality ? => we need more speed cameras !

Why not just drive the speed limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So its much better to run around and vandalize camera's then simply obeying the laws? Probably costs tax dollars to go around and repair all those camera's.

Re:Why not just drive the speed limit?

[fluffernutter]

The lesson here is that people do unpredictable things when they are unhappy, so keep them happy.

Re:Why not just drive the speed limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you take that apostrophe you put in cameras (note: plurals are made without an apostrophe) and put it in the "it's" you needed?

It's means "it is". If you write camera's, why don't you also write law's, cost's, and dollar's?

PS: than, not then

Re:Why not just drive the speed limit?

[b0s0z0ku]

If the cameras end up being continually vandalized and cost more than the revenue they make, the government might simply give up. This is France after all, not the US -- they pick their battles :)

Re:Why not just drive the speed limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

So its much better to run around and vandalize camera's then simply obeying the laws? Probably costs tax dollars to go around and repair all those camera's.

Why not drive the speed limit? Because it is too low and needlessly impedes people. This is indicated in America by the fact that most people on the road are driving over the limit.

Re:Why not just drive the speed limit?

[Anonymous Coward]

My house is in a rural area, 7 miles off of the interstate. The speed limit in/out is a paltry 45MPH. This road is literally a straight line for almost the complete distance in/out. No reason why this could not be 55MPH. I've never seen an accident on this road in all my years of driving it. Texas is the only state in the union with service roads that parallel all major roadways. Usually the speed limit is 10MPH below the adjacent major roadway, but sometimes not. In my area (North Houston), the interstate is 65/service road usually 55, no lower than 45. YMMV (pun intended).

Hit them in the pocket

[Laxator2]

Such a large-scale action is not done without some central organization.
Obviously the union leaders know how much money the bosses pocked from the revenue generated by this cameras.
By cutting this revenue the bosses are much more likely to listen to their demands.

Also, it is a case of "You keep our pay low, we can lower your pay"

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[JasterBobaMereel]

They are not organised - they have no leaders - the action is not coordinated
They do not have one set of demands
They do not have one agenda
The unions are not in control ...

Some of them have no real demands ...they just like attacking stuff ...

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Type44Q]

If this was organized...it wasn't by "French union bosses.

Nice theory, though.

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a large-scale action is not done without some central organization.

It's the Great French Nazi revolution! *hórrórs* The yellow is the new black in Paris this month.

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[thegarbz]

Such a large-scale action is not done without some central organization.

You'd be surprised how like minded people will copy good ideas from each other. Central organisation would be proven if it all happened at once. The yellow vests however have been best described as copycats at every stage of their protest.

Oooh look 10 people in Paris occupied a toll booth! A day later you hear about gilets jaunes occupying toll booths over the country. It's very much a monkey see monkey do kind of a movement.

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not centralised... it's anonymous.

It's also clever.

It's what happens when white collar males finally have enough of being punching bags for feminists, left wingers while being asked to pay for everything and keep it all running.

You're going to see a lot more of this across Europe.

I know because it's also me - and I can see the same hardening of attitudes in guys around me. Unlike your average inner city black rioter... I'm going to do it ruthlessly and quietly.

You won't know. Stuff will just stop working.

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh look 10 people in Paris occupied a toll booth! A day later you hear about gilets jaunes occupying toll booths over the country. It's very much a monkey see monkey do kind of a movement.

Duh. That's why it works, silly. Sincerely, a monkey (ok, my brother always fucking corrects me, ape)

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 100% sure that the idea of destroying these things sprung up spontaneously among multiple groops at the same time.

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying: if I see an idea I like, I should try NOT to copy it?

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds familiar... where have I heard that before? /s

Re:Hit them in the pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh look 10 people in Paris occupied a toll booth! A day later you hear about gilets jaunes occupying toll booths over the country. It's very much a monkey see monkey do kind of a movement.

Sounds terrible to live amongst, TBH.

errors

[fluffernutter]

I got caught on a speed camera once because it was in a mobile unit and it was set up behind the speed sign. It caught me in the photo visibly behind the speed sign and obviously braking hard. I remembered the incident and knew that I had slowed down to the speed limit exactly at the sign; I had known the truck was there but didn't expect it to be set up so badly. I went to fight it and there was a five hour wait. I quickly calculated the cost of the ticket and the cost for me to wait and I paid the ticket sit nce it was cheaper.

So, no, I am not a fan of speed cameras either.

Re:errors

[Anonymous Coward]

You didnt have an Taxi Meter app and started that when you were told to wait?

You know that tardiness fines for govermental officials is a thing.

Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people can't afford cars. This is how entitled these assholes are

Won't somebody think of the children?!

[FatAlb3rt]

> Some protesters feel speed cameras are solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor.

*which takes money from the speeders.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

speeders = the poors.
They decrease the speed limit to absurdly low values in rural areas.
While small cities already set local speed limits ONLY WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[b0s0z0ku]

If we're talking about the US, speed limits should be something like 25-30 mph (40-50 km/h) in towns where traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists, higher on highways with only motor vehicles (closer to 75-80 mph or 120-130km/h).

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you find these speed cameras in rich neighborhoods? They put these things in low-income areas only. Sure, it deters some people from speeding, but then they start ticketing non-speeders when not enough revenue is flowing in.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[SCVonSteroids]

speeders = the poors.

Please. I've lost count of all the assholes in BMWs, Audis, etc driving past me like I'm at a full-stop, despite driving at exactly the highway speed limit of 110 km/h.
Set up cameras and punish these "I'm too important for laws to apply to me today." folks.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the goal isn't to catch speeders, it's to make money. The people profiting off the revenue are incentivized to catch more "speeders", so they do awful things like shorten yellow light times and lower the speed limit to the point where it's agonizing. Think highways designed for 55 mph traffic relegated to 35 mph duty. Why? Because more people "speed" when it's obvious that it's safe to do so, and more people "run" red lights when they were used to 5 seconds for decades then suddenly it's 2 seconds.

If safety was the real goal, you'd only see these things in use in dangerous areas, but they're becoming ubiquitous because it makes money.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're talking about the US, speed limits should be something like 25-30 mph (40-50 km/h) in towns where traffic mixes with pedestrians and cyclists, higher on highways with only motor vehicles (closer to 75-80 mph or 120-130km/h).

Except in the US, they set a couple of barrels up, declare a construction zone and drop the speed limit to 55 where the road can easily support 85 MPH traffic; they post 4 or 5 signs indicating the 55 MPH speed limit at the beginning of the alleged zone then nothing for the next 10 miles where the zone actually ends and cash in on huge fines.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[b0s0z0ku]

Yep, traps like this are a problem -- there should be a Federal law to pull highway funding for states that use tricks like this.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. Like a $75 ticket once in a while is going to change my behavior!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of apps out there that alert for upcoming speed cameras, both fixed and mobile. Only the povs and luddites will get snagged and I'm totally cool with that. Pay my taxes bitches!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want another tax cut. Sign me up as a supporter!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Whorhay]

The problem is that in most jurisdictions the fines are really only punitive to the poor and normally there aren't any points added to your license either. In at least one country I've heard of traffic fines are proportional to the offenders income, which has resulted in some hilariously large fines. I'd be all for a system like that in the USA and for far more things than just traffic infractions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

And as a result drivers are speeding up

[neutrino38]

These devices may not be able to take pictures but they still measure speed. And the results are damning:

They detect a 30 % increase [fr] of rides above the speed limit. The lessons of all this are clear:

• Speed cameras work. It is not only a revenue source. It enforces the speed limit
• 30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[dasunt]

These devices may not be able to take pictures but they still measure speed. And the results are damning:

They detect a 30 % increase [fr] of rides above the speed limit. The lessons of all this are clear:

Part of the problem, at least in the US, is the idea that the success of a street or a road is measured by how many cars can travel on it (the road capacity).

Which sometimes makes sense - that's a great way to measure an interstate between two places.

But when it comes to streets and roads in close proximity to humans, it's a very incomplete metric. In my town, we have a road that goes between a few apartment buildings, condos, and single family dwellings. Over time, the city has widened it, added extra lanes, removed on-street parking to increase traffic flow, and even a center turn lane to prevent turning drivers from slowing people.

It's built rather well for cars. But as I said, the road travels through a dense residential area. The rule of thumb is that at 40 mph, 90% of people hit by cars die. At 30 mph, only 50% do. (At 20mph, about 10% of people die). So the road itself looks like its designed for 45mph. But a speed limit sign is relied on to drop the traffic down to 30mph for safety.

It's a bad design. A better solution would be to build the road to communicate to drivers that the speed limit is lowered - for example, a road diet to reduce the speed and have less lanes for pedestrians to cross, perhaps some sidewalk bump outs at bus stops, as well as adding back on-street parking to provide a buffer between homes and traffic. The result would be the sort of road that would feel unsafe to travel on at 45 mph. Speeds would be reduced. By the official traffic engineers' metric, the road would not be as good. But from a livability standpoint, it would be much better.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[b0s0z0ku]

Germany also sets speed limits on motorways at actual safe speeds, not speeds where police have an excuse to stop virtually anybody that they don't like the looks of.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[kilfarsnar]

These devices may not be able to take pictures but they still measure speed. And the results are damning:

They detect a 30 % increase [fr] of rides above the speed limit. The lessons of all this are clear:

• Speed cameras work. It is not only a revenue source. It enforces the speed limit
• 30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger

The data are open to interpretation. The lesson to me is that the speed limit is too low, if so many people want to go over it.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[dfghjk]

"30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger"

If you set the limit to 0 then 100% of drivers will break the law, yet that doesn't put "others life in danger". This is nothing but rhetoric.

The percentage of drivers speeding is an indicator of the reasonableness of the limits, not of the behavior of the drivers. This has been known since at least the 70's, likely much longer.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[dfghjk]

This has been known as the correct interpretation for many decades as well. Driver behavior is well understood and has been for longer than most of us have been alive.

It should also be said that any entity that presents data like this with any other interpretation is lying. This kind of stuff is backed by a pro-revenue generation agenda, plain and simple.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[Vitriol Angst]

There's a lot of people who "love the law" and talk about other people taking responsibility for their actions -- usually, that's people who think they will never have to deal with that end of the law.

And when these collections are so widespread and automated -- nobody can be innocent. You tell me how you are going to feel about the "system" if you can't pay your mortgage because you have to pay for the "unfortunate errors" that would cost too much to fix.

Personally, I would put up with an extra mugging each year if I didn't have to deal with all these companies robbing me with their terms of service. I'd rather get mugged than falsely arrested -- at least you can fight back and not go to jail for years.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[Anonymous Coward]

If people didn't want to go faster there would be no need for speed limits.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[Anonymous Coward]

The percentage of drivers speeding is an indicator of the reasonableness of the limits, not of the behavior of the drivers.

That would be true only if every speed were equally safe.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[Anonymous Coward]

whether the driver's judgement or the speed limits is wrong will be revealed only after analysis of the crash statistics.

Re:And as a result drivers are speeding up

[fgouget]

If you set the limit to 0 then 100% of drivers will break the law, yet that doesn't put "others life in danger". This is nothing but rhetoric. The percentage of drivers speeding is an indicator of the reasonableness of the limits, not of the behavior of the drivers.

If you set the speed limit to 100mph on small winding roads 0% of drivers will break the law. According to your argument that would mean a 100mph speed limit would be very reasonable. Clearly the rhetoric is all yours...

Speed cameras

[DaMattster]

It's been fairly well researched that speed cameras actually cause more problems than they solve. Actually these cameras are a revenue generating scheme. Arizona did this for a while before ripping out most of them because they caused more accidents than they were hoping to prevent.

Re:Speed cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

A number of cities have discovered this, BUT, it is so enticing others climb on. Basically these private red light camera/speed camera companies offer a 50/50 revenue split to the council where the company pays the capital cost. The cities are like, whoa, free money and slide in like a pig in slop.

Re:Speed cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree wholeheartedly. Traffic cameras are in place for one reason, and one reason only -- and that is to generate revenue for the company that creates, installs and runs them, and for the municipalities that rely on the revenue stream. The funny thing is that time after time, the revenue that is generated falls far below the estimated revenue for the municipality and then the municipality removes the cameras. Why is that? Hint - it has absolutely ZERO to do with traffic safety and everything to do with the revenue for the government.

Cameras on the interstates - in the USA - are helpful in that assists in identifying accidents and slowdowns and weather situations. Like for the morning news that gives traffic updates. But those cameras are not speed cameras and do not issue tickets. They actually provide the public a service.

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

You mean like this study which says they reduce accidents and fatalities? http://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Late...

Or maybe the one that specifically looked at Arizona and found no difference in number of collisions (though didn't look at injuries) and certainly didn't find a negative impact? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Maybe you want a wide spread study of some 550 speed cameras which showed a reduction in accidents and fatalities and at the same time directly looked at the very speed cameras that the Daily Mail and some other worthless rags claimed (incorrectly) increased accidents? https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

Or this one from America that said also accidents are reduced and overall driver behaviour in the area improves: https://www.dailysignal.com/20...

I would give you result number 5 from my Google search but it's the same study as result number 2 and I don't want to waste your time.

Re:Speed cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

My problem with these cameras is in how they are used. I don't believe that it should be legal for a traffic citation to be issued without an actual officer being there, and witnessing the violation. Facial recognition software is not 100% accurate. And without that, it is not possible to know who exactly was driving by license plate alone. Why should I get a ticket if my (licensed) son or daughter, wife, other relative or friend is driving my car? I did not commit the violation. Without 100% accurate facial recognition, there is NO PROOF of who was driving.
I also have concerns as these cameras are known to have been used track individuals movements, both in their cars and when the individual is on foot. This is just wrong for many reasons.

The state of Iowa no longer uses aircraft to spot speeders. Why? Because the aircraft are moving at significant speeds in relation to the marks on the roads that were used to time cars to see fi they were speeding. The movement of the aircraft meant that the timings were not 100% accurate, and therefore could not be used. Plus aircraft are much more expensive than Lidar equipped highway patrol cars to operate (and they cost a lot more to buy too).

Re:Speed cameras

[Seven Spirals]

Lots of things reduce risk of accidents or sickness. The question is do you want to live with those practices? Activities like eating, breathing, and fucking can all be very hazardous depending on your choices. They can shorten your life. They can even shorten the lives of others you might expose to your risky choices. The problem is that if you go around coercing the folks near you to change all the behaviors you know are risky and potentially risking others they will probably get tired of it in a hurry and decide they'd be *most* better off if they just didn't have *you* around. You love shaking your finger and telling people how to live, that's clear from your posting history. I'm guessing your head will end up in a basket with people just like you when the proles get tired of being fleeced for things like speed traps.

Re:Speed cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking red-light cameras, not speed cameras.

Re:Speed cameras

[Uberbah]

You mean apologia for revenue generation that ignores that increasing yellow light and all-red times slightly provide all of the benefits with none of the ticket nazi action?

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

Lots of things reduce risk of accidents or sickness. The question is do you want to live with those practices?

Live with a 100% voluntary tax that only affects the reckless and stupid? Absofuckinglutely. We should implement speed cameras for other parts of life too.

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

No man mean moving goalposts to a completely different topic to help further my anti-gubbmint agenda. derp derp.

Re:Speed cameras

[Uberbah]

Not a separate topic when 40% of accidents happen at intersections. pred. pred.

https://www.autoaccident.com/s...

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

Not a separate topic when 40% of accidents happen at intersections.

Yep those damn highway speedcameras causing them yellow light accidents. I think it may have fried your braincells.

Re:Speed cameras

[Seven Spirals]

Spoken like an HOA president and PTA booster. I bet you are great fun at parties.

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

I bet you would be fun at parties too if you took your ADAH medication and were able to actually stay on a point without changing subjects or moving goalposts in a pointless anti-gubmint rant.

Re:Speed cameras

[thegarbz]

and now we'll see...

French speed cameras locations are well know

[Eric.pl]

The (fixed) speed cameras are not traps. It is mandatory to have a sign installed 300m before the zone and the limit is always mentioned.
All sat navs signal them. Same for mobile phone apps.

Re:Hit them in the pocket - You can't

[Anonymous Coward]

No there's no central organization.
Union leaders are AGAINST 'yellow vests' because this does not profit to unions.

It is a plot by the French gov.

[Eric.pl]

No speed cameras => more "yellow vests" people killed or injured due to higher speeds.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxThere is a way arn

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. In the US they will pull you over and take your cash. They literally warn Canadian tourists about this shit. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-t-charge-you-but-they-ll-grab-your-money-1.2760736 You think they will be honest with Speed Cameras? "On its official website, the Canadian government informs its citizens that “there is no limit to the amount of money that you may legally take into or out of the United States.” Nonetheless, it adds, banking in the U.S. can be difficult for non-residents, so Canadians shouldn’t carry large amounts of cash."

This could be a good test

[ThomasD3]

Now, we get to know if the speed cameras keep the limits safe, or not. We can check the accident statistics for the period learn how much of an impact they have.

Re:This could be a good test

[Anonymous Coward]

This won't happen.
People pointed that the new limits lead to a raise of accidents where there were tested.
It was considered as insignificant.

So if the number of accidents fall while the speeding cabin are off, they will find other reasons to explain it.

under posted speed limits are the issue 70+ in 55

[Joe_Dragon]

under posted speed limits are the issue 70+ in 55 zone are very common. And some of the work zone 45 is just asking to get blow en off the road for trying to go that slow.

Also the 24/7 work zones when no one is working and / or there are walls in place.

If we real speed limits and did not over do the work zones. On road with an posted 70 you don't drop that 45 for an work zone unless it's really needed. and 2 lanes each way on half of the road work zones is not really ok to be lowed to 45.

Darn it, I just got a speed camera ticket...

[PortHaven]

So confused. I went to Home Depot and bought one of the those yellow work vests. I was wearing it as I drove. But the speed camera still caught me and gave me a ticket. I thought yellow vests prevented speed cameras from working.

"The" is a mighty useful word.

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

speed cameras = revenue

they are not there for safety. You want safety in a car, install or buy a car with 2-4 point cameras.

SMART

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the smartest thing they have done yet. Take out the communications and control points.

All wrong my man !

[Anonymous Coward]

> 30% more french drivers are breaking the law and putting others life in danger

And what if there are LESS accidents while more people are breaking the law ?

Re:All wrong my man !

[dfghjk]

Then lower the speed limits until the accident rate increases, then demonize the speeders for that. Never underestimate what politicians will do.

And it's all paid by our taxes

[dargaud]

In this movement everybody is protesting whatever it is they don't like, and breaking things and beating cops for it. What an awesome philosophy. And of course all paid for by taxes.

Situational Haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

Sacre bleu, mon Dieu!
No speed camera footage
Off to the next pole!

Captcha: quarrels

Will somebody please think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Christophe Castaner said the willful damage was a threat to road safety and put lives in danger."

How dramatic...

Revenue generation

[WCMI92]

Is what this is only about. Not "safety". These things need to be stomped in the US as well.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxThere is a way arn

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is hurt if a person speeds? Who?

The simple act of speeding hurts NOBODY.

Theory, you say ?

[Laxator2]

The people who are most affected are those that are commuting to work in their cars. They are the ones hardest hit by the increases in the fuel price, road taxes, etc.
Very similar to the ever increasing rail fares in the UK.
And since these people don't have the luxury of not going to work, the first place they will complain is the union.

Collective road rage

[Anonymous Coward]

These psychotic fossil addicts are putting everybody's life in danger. It's time to stop enabling them. France should shut down its gas stations.

No Debate

[Anonymous Coward]

City governments tend to lay the entire cost of the cop shops and courts upon those that get tickets. The obvious issue already mention is that robotic cars will get almost no tickets at all. Therefore the financing for law enforcement would have to be loaded upon the public. Automation has surprises waiting for us that we have not dreamed of yet and some of those surprises will tend to be very disruptive. Maybe robotic cops could work cheaper than humans.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

"cameras covered in paint or black tape"
God damn wussies, beat them with a baseball bat or set them on fire.

Threat to road safety my ass.

[Computershack]

The police in the UK were finally forced to admit a couple of years ago that in the UK speeding was a contributory factor in just 5% of road deaths and just 6% of all accidents following a report by the Office of National Statistics released using data from the Police's own accident investigations. In fact inappropriate speeding (where you're driving under the speed limit but too fast for the conditions) was responsible for being a contributory factor more than exceeding the speed limit. The most common contributory factor was driver error.

Nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably the only productive thing the yellow vests are doing.

It's just too bad they are not smashing traffic cameras over here.

Simple Fix

[Paxtez]

They release a notice saying that every camera that is damaged, they will add X% to the fuel tax to repair the equipment. Granted this slightly punishes everyone for the action of the jerks, but it would make the actions of jerks less "sexy" to the public.

Re:Simple Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The benevolence of Ming the Merciless knows no bounds... all hail Emperor Ming!

Ugh... Arizona...

[gosand]

It's been fairly well researched that speed cameras actually cause more problems than they solve. Actually these cameras are a revenue generating scheme. Arizona did this for a while before ripping out most of them because they caused more accidents than they were hoping to prevent.

I lived there for 8.5 years. I remember those damn cameras. When my wife was in the hospital having our first child, I was driving home around 3AM to get some sleep. I came up to a red light at a 4-way intersection. I sat. And sat. For about 3 to 4 minutes. Not another car in sight - and I could see for a couple miles in all directions, it is the desert after all. So I went through the red light and FLASH FLASH I got nailed. This was in a relatively newly developed area with no streetlights and it was very dark, so the flashes were quite disorienting. Yeah, I just paid the ticket when I got the pic in the mail. Nobody would ever believe me that the light was not functioning properly.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxThere is a way arn

[sinij]

Just don't drive too fast. Dammit.

No problem! Municipality will just lower speed limits, or more typically, intentionally design 55 to 35 zones to trap people.

How about 2 lies and you're demoted to AC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still happy?

how about 100%?

[NikeHerc]

When you dudes have reached 100% over there, pay us a visit, except don't use "paint or black tape," use crowbars or sledge hammers.

Speed cameras are good for nothing but increasing a city's wealth at the expense of its citizens.

And when the cameras appeared...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's no coincidence that they lowered the speed limits to 50mph just after they installed the speed cameras.

morons..

[SuperDre]

I agree with them for peacefull protesting the increase in taxes, but this is going too far, destroying camera's is not right, and people doing that should be put in jail.. Because who do you think have to pay for replacing those camera's, YEP you morons, the citizen who already are paying way too much..

Re:morons..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think their goal for the cameras is to not replace them.

None of this is true

[Petersko]

When I was born in 1970 my father cut hair and my mother worked at the post office. We lived in a trailer until I was 9. I didnâ(TM)t go to post secondary school. Yet somehow my parents are retiring in comfort in a $400,000 condo with comfortable savings. I lead a team of industrial software developers, and my total compensation in 2018 was about $180,000. They did not get money to start out and neither did I.

I donâ(TM)t discount that some people start out in a negative, but declaring that everybody needs to inherit some amount of wealth to be successful is an easy out for some.

Now, donâ(TM)t think I donâ(TM)t understand that the luxury of starting from zero is a Caucasian perk. My parents were employed. I never went hungry.

Let's get these guys some H1-B Visas!

[MrSavage]

I've got a LOT of work for you guys.

Thank God there's no large, decentralized network

[rsilvergun]

where a group of people could coordinate action without a central figure telling them how to act. Why, they could post comments all over the place saying all manner of things.

Luckily we don't live in such a terrifying dystopia. And once we take care of Joe Union and his French compatriot (Pepe Union?) we can focus our attention on our true opponent: the Turks of the Ottoman Empire.

I'm opposed to it

[rsilvergun]

it's a regressive tax. e.g. it disproportionately impacts the working class. That's why the Yellow Vests are targeting it. It's designed to shift the cost of maintaining civilization from the 1% (who receive by far the largest biggest benefit of civilization) to the working class.

Re: Bill Sucking Off Poohbear AGAIN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre such a filthy whore Bill. China has a much bloodier history of gang violence in subserviance to a single tiny cock Emporer/Mao. But OF COURSE you hate the French for their freedom.. youre a fascist cocksucker!

California and Speed traps

[rsilvergun]

So California had a problem with small towns funding themselves with speed traps. They'd take a section of highway they were responsible for and drop the speed limit from 75 to 40 for a 1-3 mile stretch. The local cops would learn which cars belonged to residents and target out of towners who would pay the ticket to get along with their trip.

So they passed an anti-speed trap law. Townships were required to measure average speed on roads and if they wanted to set the speed lower they had to do an (expensive) traffic study every 6 years to prove the limit should be lower. The studies were independent could backfire resulting in a higher speed limit and even fewer tickets.

This is the next step. To hell with the camera programs. They're just a crappy way for people to avoid paying their taxes. I don't normally call taxation theft, but when you're doing crap like this and you have the means to raise revenue legitimately then this is nothing more than a shakedown. Crap like this is what gives government (which gave us NASA, clean water, the highway system and higher education for working class folks) a bad name.

France has a tax problem.

[AHuxley]

Stop trying to extract so much tax from working and average French people.
They worked for decades and now France needs so much tax money in the past decade? What is France doing with so much new tax money?
What changed in France so much that the gov now needs so much new tax money to be extracted from generations of French people?
What is the French gov doing with all this money? Who is the gov money going to?

When people cannot afford transport due to vast new gov tax demands they will protest.
Tell the French people what all the new collected tax money is getting wasted on and stop taxing people so much.

Re: mind boggled morans abound, look at you!

[Anonymous Coward]

You country will spend the rest of this century competing with Africa for the "Biggest Shithole" Award. Youre fucked bit sure IMMIGRANTS are your reeeeeal problem.

Time you retun the Statue of Liberty to France you faggot.

Re: Check your priveledge! $3 drip coffee!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunkin charges $1 for the same size drip coffee Starfucks charges $3. "Virtually the same!" says the spoilt first worlder.

If only they used scientific methods

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of our speed limits are not set by engineers using scientific methods, formulas and guidelines. Our National Maximum Speed Law was set by bureaucrats during an energy crisis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Since the repeal of the law states are free to set their own maximum speeds, but I can assure you many set speed limits without regards to engineering principals. I have seen long straight roads with excellent visibility and nothing on either side of the road limited to 25 MPH. Coincidentally, police often sit on those roads looking for violators of the speed limit.

Many speed limits were set 30-40 years ago and never updated to reflect the improvements in vehicle safety. Cars are safer now than they have ever been, yet speed limits remain unchanged.

Municipalities that rely on speeding ticket revenue will be in for hard times when autonomous cars become mainstream as speeding tickets will go the way of the dodo.

What's the problem

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Members of the "yellow vests" protest movement have vandalized almost 60% of France's entire speed camera network

I hate to admit it, but I'm okay with this. I hate speed cameras and I applaud any ballsy SOB who takes one out.

I don't want to be policed by a computer. If speeding is that bad, put a cop on the corner with a radar gun.

Catch me fair and square and I'll pay the ticket, but fuck me if some shitbox running Windows 7 should be allowed to issue me a ticket with no real recourse.

Did someone say Orange?

[Anonymous Coward]

Orange Fan SAD uh huh huh huh!

BS, just follow the money.

[thesupraman]

You are being foolish for two reason.

Firstly, 0 WOULD be safer than any other speed, and slower speeds are by definition 'safer', as such things are ALWAYS a tradeoff, however that does not mean we should lower speeds to 0, for obvious reasons.

However, more importantly in a real world - by the time you remove accidents caused by fatigue, distraction, alcohol/drugs, mechanical fault, and ignoring other fixed road laws (like giveways) you actually end up with VERY FEW ACCIDENTS WHERE SPEED WAS THE CAUSE.

What they do today to make speed important is report it as a 'contributing factor' in accidents. Of course it is, they can do that because by definition most accdents wont happen if the vehicles are not moving.
They very often report speed 'as a factor' even when both vehicles are moving below the posted speed limit.
Why? Because speed fines are a HUGE source of revenue, while other factors are almost zero revenue. Speed is therefore made the #1 priority.

This unfortunately has removed any wish to post speed limits which would suit modern cars. French A roads actually have pretty sensible limits (130 km/h for many situations), however could easily be faster, and general roads have been lowered from 90 to 80 km/h. Have cars got less safe suddenly?

It is interesting that road fatalities drop VERY little from changes in posted speeds. Most of the long term drops are due to increased vehicle safety features.
Why? Because speed CAUSES very few accidents. This is clearly seen when posted limits are moved up and down - accident rates do not change in proportion.

Re:Speed cameras = dishonest taxThere is a way arn

[prefec2]

First of all, speed limits are usually specified by traffic law. At least that is the case in Europe. Cities cannot arbitrarily change and set limits. Secondly, in case they change the speed limit, you still are able to follow the rules. Thirdly, in case the speed limit is not acceptable, you can (a) sue the city or (b) engage politically so that it is changed. Unfortunately, so can people living there. Maybe they do not want you to go that fast. In that case a compromise is in order. If you cannot work and live with compromises, you are unable to live in a modern society. Sorry. In that case a dictatorship might be more to your taste, but there you also have to follow rules (except you are the dictator). There you cannot negotiate more reasonable rules. So maybe this compromise thing is not that bad after all. Get political engaged in your town if speed limits are really bothering your.

Re:Destruction set your black ass free

[CaptainDork]

You're 100% wrong.

Slaves did not rebel and free themselves. Whites and Blacks worked together to do the right fucking thing. Blacks could not do it by themselves. America has a built-in sense of decency and unity when the chips are down.

Women did not get the vote by themselves. Women and men, working together, did the right thing.

The Civil Rights violence brought awareness (I saw Providence burn) and people both Black and White did the right goddam thing, working together.

The Vietnam riots got really ugly and put an end to the war.

Again, the process:

1. Ask nicely
2. Rally
3. Peaceful protest
4. Sit ins and disruptions
5. Riots
6. Burn the goddam house down
7. Change

We're beginning to see that now, and it'll get worse before it gets better.

Hold on to your hat.