no, they have to prove you are guilty. Its on them
Speed cameras save lives
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
no, they have to prove you are guilty. Its on them
But according to KilljoyKlown, though his friend did nothing wrong, indeed wasn't even driving, "He had to (presumably take off work and go to the police station to) show them his drivers license and convince them he didn't know where I could be contacted", or in other words, prove his innocence.
Which if it was a grainy picture at night and the driver looked reasonably like him, would not be easy to do.
Arthur
Which if it was a grainy picture at night and the driver looked reasonably like him, would not be easy to do.
Arthur
Here its irrelivent what you look like, if you OWN the car that is enough to charge you with the offense. If you wernt driving you have to sign a stat dec saying who the driver was because you should be responcible for the car you own. If its stolen then you have to report it stolen
The camera only takes your picture when you break the speed limit. If you get the ticket in the mail, it's up to you to pay it or show it wasn't you behind the wheel. But what if you let your kid or wife or girlfriend drive your car? What if they took your car keys without your permission? Does putting the blame on them get you out of paying? Passing guilt might not get you out of paying, but not having your insurance raised is the more important issue here, because that will ding you every year for about 5 years in a row.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
But they don't administer them correctly. They allow people to drive on most of them for free, which increases congestion and decreases the quality of everyone's life. This is called "rationing by purgatory." The only people who don't drive are the ones who are driven so crazy by it that they can't stand it. Everybody else just gets out there and gives each other the finger.
If people were charged for peak-hour commuting, businesses in city centers would have to either pay their employees significantly more in order to attract them, or (goddess forbid) learn how to manage people who work at home.
Furthermore, by allowing people to use resources for free the government does not collect enough money to provide for the repair and maintenance of those resources. Ask any architect or civil engineer in America how he chooses his driving routes, and he'll tell you he tries to avoid driving over American bridges because they're all due to collapse at any moment.
This is a typical example of what you get when you allow a government to "solve a problem."
Oh yes. The same entity that pays money to subsidize tobacco farms and also pays money to mount anti-smoking campaigns. The same one that spends trillions of dollars we don't have to save the 3,000 lives that are lost due to terrorism every decade, but won't spend a few billion to install breathalyzer interlocks in every car at the factory to save the 150,000 lives that are lost due to drunk driving during that same decade.
Sure, I really want those people to have even more control over my life!
I see that you're an American, because you display the innumeracy that is typical of our people. Multiply that ten minutes twice a day by the number of work days in a year and see how inconsequential it is then. If you're an American I'm sure you need a calculator to do what my generation regards as fourth-grade arithmetic, but you probably have one handy.
Besides, as I already noted, losing twenty minutes a day is a major inconvenience for people who actually have very little discretionary time in their day. Should I give up taking my dog for a walk, making a reasonably nutritious dinner, washing the floor, watching "The Daily Show," or being a moderator on SciForums, because my boss won't let me work at home?
Yeah sure. Just what we all need: the extremely competent, good-hearted people in the government being able to see us all the time. I'll get right on it.
Life is full of risks. We choose the ones we're willing to accept and either mitigate or avoid the others. We like being able to get where we're going faster so we accept the increased risk. In any case, heart disease kills about ten times as many of us as road accidents.
Somewhere in that embedded quote was a reference to the high rate of deaths due to road accidents in Third World countries. The major cause of that is, arguably, the fact that most of the people there can't afford glasses so they can't see where they're going. Even bus drivers and taxi drivers can't always afford an appointment with an optometrist (much less an ophthalmologist), or the cost of the glasses themselves. A new type of corrective eyewear using oil-filled lenses has been recently developed. It allows the user to adjust the shape of the lens and then stabilize it when he gets it right. These can be marketed currently at about $10, meaning somebody like Bill Gates could spend ten years giving them to everybody in the Third World, without overspending his annual charity budget. You wanna talk about a Paradigm Shift, wait until everyone in Burma, Angola and Uruguay can see well enough to read!
It's not the research I object to, nor the publication of statistics, nor even public-service campaigns to convince us to change our habits. It's governments forcing us to do what a few influential people think we ought to be doing, quite often because it will generate profit for them, but just as often because they belong to a religion or have some other philosophy that I find repugnant.
Take the new laws requiring toddlers in safety seats to be put in the back seat of the car. The rationale behind this was that when they rode in the front seat, a few of them were killed every year in collisions by air bags. But now, more of them are killed by being left in the back seat when the adult parks the car and forgets they're there. (We're talking about a few dozen children per year out of tens of millions, and yes a few dozen parents really can be that distracted; usually by some other kind of emergency.) This is government at its finest!
I don't know if the laws are the same in every state, but here in Maryland and the nearby jurisdictions, the owner of the car is responsible for paying the fine... period. The only way out of it is to provide proof that the photo is wrong and that's not your car, or proof that the car had been stolen. It's up to you to squeeze the money out of your kid, your spouse, or your buddy.
The up-side of this is that the infraction does not quality as a Vehicle Code violation, especially since they can't identify the driver anyway. So it is not reported to the DMV or your insurance company, so they can't take away your license or increase the cost of your insurance.
Here in Montgomery County, Maryland, the speed cameras are identified in advance by signs. And the fine is only $40. Unlike many jurisdictions, they're really not trying to make money off of them, they really are just trying to make people drive slower. In Washington DC, on the other hand, they're fond of putting them on wide streets with no residences nearby or other sources of foot traffic, where the speed limit is ridiculously low (like 35mph on a main highway), and they don't tell you where they are. You may not even realize you've crossed the state line and may think you're still in Maryland! And their photo-radar tickets cost $120.
Washington is an unusual city because a large portion of its land is owned by the federal government and therefore cannot be taxed. And since it is not within a state, it's at the mercy of the feds to supply their budget every year. And since until very recently it was a black-majority population the government was not very generous to them. So a huge portion of their city government budget comes from parking and traffic fines.
You don't consider the tax on every gallon of gas to be a fee we all pay to drive on our free highways? Maybe it just doesn't all get spent on the right things or maybe it's not enough, but whatever it is, it is not driving for free.
Yet toll roads and bridges are still horrendously crowded in many places. So tolls alone do not solve the problem.
As an alternative, here in San Diego, metered entrance ramps have made a small but noticeable dent in traffic problems, at the expense of time spent waiting in line. San Diego has also implemented a "congestion pricing" HOV lane, where you can pay per use based on traffic in the lanes. During off times it's $0.50, during rush hour it can be $5.00
I've never given anyone the finger. Most people here don't. Traffic is sort of a fact of life in any larger city, the inevitable result of people who want to use a free resource.
So sort of a "rationing by poverty." Poor people would no longer be able to use the roads to get to work, while the rich would enjoy less traffic.
Uh, you just proposed a government solution to the traffic problem!
Hmm. So you want the government to have less control over your life - but you want the government to solve the traffic problem for you. I think you have a conflict in your desires.
(BTW I think in terms of the ultimate American complaint, it's a complaint about losing ten minutes a day contained in a post that took fifteen minutes to compose.)
Why, you're right! And whose fault is it that the person lives so far from work? The government's? Should we pass a law that says people have to live less than 5 miles from where they work?
No they don't.
They charge the fees via the gasoline/diesel fuel, but also charge tolls.
The net in 2007 of user fees was nearly $100 Billion dollars.
Nope.
The total non user fee based road spending was $90 Billion in 2007, and that came from TAXES and it's primarily those people driving into work who already pay those taxes, so they are indeed already paying quite a bit for the roads and cars they drive to get to work on.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12043/01-19-HighwaySpending_Brief.pdf
But switching to even more user fees is an even more regressive tax structure, but still, considering the 100+ million car commuters, if that $90 billion was directly charged to just commuters, (about $90 per person) it would have no effect on salaries needed to work in the city nor cause any increase in the small number of us who can work at home.
.
If our bridges are all due to collapse "at any moment", then why aren't they collapsing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures
Note how almost all recent bridge failures are from something besides maintainence (have to go back to 89 to find one that had to do with maintainence).
Or consider the recent Rating done on our NHS bridges (~70% of all bridge traffic)
Now based on that rating (and note that even down to level 2 failure is not imminent),
In 2006 the percentage of NHS bridges with Deck Ratings of 5 or greater was 95 %;
with Superstructure Ratings of 5 or greater it was 97.9 %;
with Substructure Ratings of 5 or greater it was 98.1 %.
Or a different method, the Health Index:
The Average Health Index of NHS bridges in 2006 was 91.1.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/pdfs/chap11.pdf
Arthur
The REALITY is our commuting transportation is much more complex then just from the suburbs to the city.
Of the ~128 million commuters in the US:
The largest group don't go into the city at all because 41 million commute between Suburbs.
27 million commute within the city itself.
20 million commute within the surrounding Rural area
18 million commute from Suburb to City
8 Million go from City to Suburb
8 Million go from City and Suburb to a different but Nearby Metro Area.
2 Million go from Rural to Suburb
2 Million go from City or Suburb to Rural
http://www.slideshare.net/marcus.bowman.slides/us-commuting-statistical-analysis
Of course. And having people live closer to work helps reduce their commute no matter where they are going to (or coming from.) Problem solved.
Interactive Speed Limit Signs
The most effective speed "cameras"—as such—I have seen in my area are these weird, solar-powered speed guns with a display screen. The screen tells you how fast you are going, and at a certain margin over—either two miles an hour, or a <10% margin, though I haven't figured out which—it changes to red letters telling you to "SLOW DOWN".
At first, I was annoyed, but the things work.
I regularly drive 15th Ave. in Seattle, between Northgate and 80th. It is considered a major thoroughfare, having no traffic lights between Northgate Way and 80th Street. But it is also a residential zone, with light commercial a couple blocks west on Roosevelt Way. As a result, the speed limit on this stretch of 15th is thirty miles per hour.
The neighborhood to the east of 15th is built onto a hillside that runs down to Lake City Way (not pictured); the area just west of the Victory Heights Tennis Courts includes a natural gully, over which has run a traffic and pedestrian bridge since, well, time immemorial. They recently replaced the bridge.
It's a curious thing, with a slight upward grade running to the south.
People generally hit the old bridge around forty to forty-five miles an hour. Indeed, they still do.
But southbound traffic on 15th runs up a hill after crossing the bridge, and people used to just fly up that hill, often crowning at near fifty miles an hour, a full 67% over the speed limit.
When they replaced the bridge, though, they also put two speed cameras on 15th; the northbound camera is down in the lower Eighties. The southbound camera is near the top of the hill, call it the upper Nineties.
Like I said, I was annoyed at first.
But then I realized that very nearly everyone I've seen driving that stretch responds to the cameras. Instead of hitting that intersection at fifty miles an hour, they're running through at thirty.
No, literally, it works. Damnedest thing.
Northbound traffic still runs a bit fast down the hill toward the bridge, but in my anecdotal opinion, driving that road at least a couple times a week, if not more, is that the average speed southbound, approaching the speed gun, has crashed to thirty or just barely over; the sign flashes at you if you break thirty-two miles an hour. The average speed on the long, flat stretch between there and 80th has come down considerably, too. I can't give you much more than a broad estimate, but I would guess it's the difference between forty-five and thirty-five, especially in the northbound. The difference, to put it mildly, is striking.
Pictured above is a radar speed sign from elsewhere in Seattle; I couldn't find a picture of the ones on 15th, which are mounted on poles with solar arrays at the top. But yes, these little things are the most effective speed control devices I've ever seen in Seattle.
They don't clock tickets. They catch people's attention. People slow down.
Damnedest thing, I tells ya.
The most effective speed "cameras"—as such—I have seen in my area are these weird, solar-powered speed guns with a display screen. The screen tells you how fast you are going, and at a certain margin over—either two miles an hour, or a <10% margin, though I haven't figured out which—it changes to red letters telling you to "SLOW DOWN".
At first, I was annoyed, but the things work.
I regularly drive 15th Ave. in Seattle, between Northgate and 80th. It is considered a major thoroughfare, having no traffic lights between Northgate Way and 80th Street. But it is also a residential zone, with light commercial a couple blocks west on Roosevelt Way. As a result, the speed limit on this stretch of 15th is thirty miles per hour.
The neighborhood to the east of 15th is built onto a hillside that runs down to Lake City Way (not pictured); the area just west of the Victory Heights Tennis Courts includes a natural gully, over which has run a traffic and pedestrian bridge since, well, time immemorial. They recently replaced the bridge.
It's a curious thing, with a slight upward grade running to the south.
People generally hit the old bridge around forty to forty-five miles an hour. Indeed, they still do.
But southbound traffic on 15th runs up a hill after crossing the bridge, and people used to just fly up that hill, often crowning at near fifty miles an hour, a full 67% over the speed limit.
When they replaced the bridge, though, they also put two speed cameras on 15th; the northbound camera is down in the lower Eighties. The southbound camera is near the top of the hill, call it the upper Nineties.
Like I said, I was annoyed at first.
But then I realized that very nearly everyone I've seen driving that stretch responds to the cameras. Instead of hitting that intersection at fifty miles an hour, they're running through at thirty.
No, literally, it works. Damnedest thing.
Northbound traffic still runs a bit fast down the hill toward the bridge, but in my anecdotal opinion, driving that road at least a couple times a week, if not more, is that the average speed southbound, approaching the speed gun, has crashed to thirty or just barely over; the sign flashes at you if you break thirty-two miles an hour. The average speed on the long, flat stretch between there and 80th has come down considerably, too. I can't give you much more than a broad estimate, but I would guess it's the difference between forty-five and thirty-five, especially in the northbound. The difference, to put it mildly, is striking.
Pictured above is a radar speed sign from elsewhere in Seattle; I couldn't find a picture of the ones on 15th, which are mounted on poles with solar arrays at the top. But yes, these little things are the most effective speed control devices I've ever seen in Seattle.
They don't clock tickets. They catch people's attention. People slow down.
Damnedest thing, I tells ya.
I think you might be right. Over here where I live they have one a few blocks from a high school to lower speed to 20mph and it works on me every time.
FR: your comments are shear idiocy, we already have suberbs which are becoming "gettos" with intergenerational disadvantage. Kids growing up to get the doll and thats all they will every do. These are the areas furthest from the city, they generally have poor public transport access and so are compleatly reliant on cars, when they do have jobs they are generally very low paying. And you come along and say "no roads should be for the ritch", i cant even express how stupid your ideas are. You would basically be dooming these areas to welfare because they dont have any other choice, they cant travel to work, to schools, to medical apointments, to hospitals because they cant aford the road tolls.
If you can and housing is available near where you want to live and both wage earners have jobs in the same area etc etc
Typically those don't all come together, or stay together.
Yep. Which is the problem with any simple solution - it doesn't apply to all cases.
I think you might be right. Over here where I live they have one a few blocks from a high school to lower speed to 20mph and it works on me every time.
After a while you learn to ignore them. Especially if they aren't accurate.
@ Tiassa,
Nice idea; polite cameras suggesting things to you.
In my city you wont go past a camera too fast or your wallet will get ripped open.
The cameras I can get used to.
My beef with radar traps was always where the coppers liked to sit and wait. One such popular local for the police was on my street. What's up with that?
Let's just say if I lived on any other street I'd probably be a few points richer every year.
There should be an exemption for people who live within a mile of the speed trap just so we don't provide so much repeat business.
Nice idea; polite cameras suggesting things to you.
In my city you wont go past a camera too fast or your wallet will get ripped open.
The cameras I can get used to.
My beef with radar traps was always where the coppers liked to sit and wait. One such popular local for the police was on my street. What's up with that?
Let's just say if I lived on any other street I'd probably be a few points richer every year.
There should be an exemption for people who live within a mile of the speed trap just so we don't provide so much repeat business.
Its quite simple, dont speed and you wont have to pay. Hell i mean seriously we dont put up with theives going around saying "just because i stole something is no reason to procute me".
You dont drink and drive you have nothing to fear from a random breath testing station and if you dont speed you have nothing to fear from a speed camera
@ Asguard,
I just think there are some common areas for radar traps. If a person lives outside of those areas they are less likely to get tickets. Its a probability thing.
I have never had a suspended license or more than 3 points at any time, so my driving skills are not in question. I blame my car. It's a speed demon!
In my city speeding is the norm. If you did the speed limit in my city then you should not even be allowed on the highway.
Have a look,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akmu7sfK4q8&feature=related
The Case For Higher Speed Limits on Hwy. 401 (Trans-Canada Hwy)
This highway is the busiest highway in the world, and is 20 lanes wide in some parts. If you do the speed limit you are going to kill someone. Rush hour (above) is a slow exception.
I just think there are some common areas for radar traps. If a person lives outside of those areas they are less likely to get tickets. Its a probability thing.
I have never had a suspended license or more than 3 points at any time, so my driving skills are not in question. I blame my car. It's a speed demon!
In my city speeding is the norm. If you did the speed limit in my city then you should not even be allowed on the highway.
Have a look,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akmu7sfK4q8&feature=related
The Case For Higher Speed Limits on Hwy. 401 (Trans-Canada Hwy)
This highway is the busiest highway in the world, and is 20 lanes wide in some parts. If you do the speed limit you are going to kill someone. Rush hour (above) is a slow exception.
Last edited: