http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/06/04/aa.speed.cameras.highways/index.html


Putting up cameras indiscriminately on the highway that clocks a vehicles speed that leads to a citation fine issued by the Gestapo Highway Patrol.

Quote :

" But most have yet to see a freeway speed camera, which are common in Europe but currently are operated in just two U.S. states. Opponents and backers of speed cameras both suggest that eventually speed cameras will become the norm on U.S. freeways. But just how likely is a nationwide roll-out? And what factors stand in the way? We take a look."

Quote :

"The group's research shows that photo enforcement "works to slow drivers down. Cameras do what police officers can't -- enforce speed limit laws 24/7. Speeding is a major safety problem on our roads. It contributes to one-third of all crash deaths.""

Surely someone cruising 85mph down I40 in the middle of nowhere in light traffic is more dangerous than some soccer mom going the speedlimit but yapping on the cell phone while zig-zagging across lanes in rush hour traffic or Grandma going 55 in the left lane of a 4 lane 65mph freeway.

Quote :

"If you don't like the idea of sending revenue to your local government, don't break the law. It's hardly unreasonable to expect drivers to stay within 10 mph of the speed limit. I have an elementary school in my neighborhood, which is bisected by a major commuter road where drivers regularly speed like banshees. I want those drivers ticketed. Period. There aren't enough police officers to do that everywhere"

Guilty until proven Innocent AM I RITE!

Quote :

"Cristine Weeks, a spokeswoman for Redflex, an Australian company headquartered near Phoenix that works in tandem with seven other vendors enforcing speed limits nationwide and operates Arizona's freeway speed-camera system, says several studies -- including those of the IIHS, Arizona State University and the Arizona Department of Transportation -- have demonstrated camera "efficacy and accident reductions.""

Surely nobody drives a vehicle other than the owner! I like how nobody mentions the many circumstances in which vehicles are driven by a different driver than the owner. This is an issue with stop light cameras also but the frequency of such situations is surely less since running a red light is likely to end with you in a crash. On the hand driving 56 on Western Blvd is not prohibitive hazard.

Hey Billy did you drive my car 23 days ago at 10:30 pm to pick up those sorostitutes that live off the beltline a couple miles away; or was that me going downtown to the bars?? hmmm....

I guess whenever I want to speed I just need to borrow Grandma's car to act like Jeff Gordon around Charlotte.

Not to mention there are sometimes circumstances where speeding may be out of necessity and if unluckily caught an officer would surely use discretion.... Uh oh my kid cut open his arm, i better drive the speed limit on the highway so RedFlex does not give me a ticket



Remember guys its for your own safety!! also to increase municipality revenue; so our city council can create more Pork projects!

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 9:07 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 9:09 PM. Reason : l]

6/4/2009 9:07:00 PM

Did Godwin's law just implode on itself?

6/4/2009 9:08:58 PM

I thought of Godwin's law but I think it pertains when we want to compare a Big Brother video ticketing system on the highway to an equivalent invasive of privacy and rights as one would expect a totalitarian leader like Hitler to utilize.

6/4/2009 9:10:59 PM

1. don't break the law
2. don't let your buddy drive your car if you can't trust him not to break the law
3. ???
4. Profit

[Edited on June 4, 2009 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2009 9:47:50 PM

Quote :

"than some soccer mom going the speedlimit but yapping on the cell phone while zig-zagging across lanes in rush hour traffic or Grandma going 55 in the left lane of a 4 lane 65mph freeway"

Ok, so lets here your ideas for policing this as cheaply as the speeding cameras.

6/4/2009 9:49:49 PM

If they ever make it so I can't speed, I'll no-shit move to another country.

6/4/2009 10:27:14 PM

Quote :

"don't break the law"

6/4/2009 10:34:03 PM

Again...I don't like the sound of these here "Boncentration Bamps"

6/4/2009 10:36:33 PM

Quote :

"don't break the law"

6/5/2009 12:23:33 AM

Quote :

"If they ever make it so I can't speed, I'll no-shit move to another country."

No you won't. You'll put out your cigarette, put on your seatbelt and get in line with the rest of us sheep.

6/5/2009 12:27:55 AM

Try me.

6/5/2009 12:44:10 AM

Has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue, and there is plenty of evidence where speed cameras make it less safe. Furthermore, the dunderheads in state and local governments have no fucking clue how to account for lost wealth due to people being stuck in fucking traffic caused by people slowing down for these stupid fucking things.


Needless to say, any local politician who votes for this nonsense loses my vote.

I guess people don't read George Orwell anymore. Probably think Big Brother means a crappy reality tv show.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 1:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2009 1:07:32 AM

citation fine = gas chambers


Your logic is flawless.

6/5/2009 1:31:58 AM

camera on freeways and everywhere = police state

numbnuts

6/5/2009 7:28:56 AM

^^
STFU, idiot. We get it. He mentioned Hitler.
OMFG EVERYTHING ELSE HE SAID MUST BE WRONG -- ANY TIME YOU MENTION HITLER OR NAZIS, YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY WRONG
For once, look past the nazi or hitler comparisons, and actually think.

You're the one with flawed logic. Whatever went on in your brain that turned:

Quote :

"How Would Hitler stop Speeding...Putting up cameras indiscriminately on the highway that clocks a vehicles speed that leads to a citation fine issued by the Gestapo Highway Patrol"

or

Quote :

"...compare a Big Brother video ticketing system on the highway to an equivalent invasive of privacy and rights as one would expect a totalitarian leader like Hitler to utilize"

into

Quote :

"citation fine = gas chambers"

is certainly not logic.

Your straw-man is far more of a logical failure than HUR's alleged "gas chamber" comparison....

6/5/2009 7:30:27 AM

What a bunch of fucking bullshit. I hate this argument most of all.

Quote :

"If you don't like the idea of sending revenue to your local government, don't break the law. It's hardly unreasonable to expect drivers to stay within 10 mph of the speed limit. I have an elementary school in my neighborhood, which is bisected by a major commuter road where drivers regularly speed like banshees. I want those drivers ticketed. Period. There aren't enough police officers to do that everywhere"

It isn't clear how far away the school is from the road, but it doesn't sound like this should be a problem. Unless this is the "Dangerous Minds" of elementary schools, these kids are constantly supervised. And who knows how close the road actually is to the school. If this was a real problem, someone have likely already been injured by a speeder and if that happened I'm sure this period would have mentioned.

So in the absence of evident danger, we should continue our creep toward an Orwellian distopia just so this busy body can feel more secure against this imagined threat???? Bull Hockey!!!

6/5/2009 7:52:00 AM

I recommend everyone watch Demolition Man. That cheezy 1990's action/sci-fi movie is looking more and more like our future.

Quote :

"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal? I've seen the future. You know what it is? Its a 47 year old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas thinking of bannan-brocli shakes and singing 'I'm an Oscar Myer Weiner'. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrTP7vEH2E

6/5/2009 7:59:42 AM

I've seen this shit manifesting for years, and will always be against it.

6/5/2009 10:19:42 AM

I never understood why conservative/Republican-types are simultaneously:

(1) AGAINST highway / red light cameras that basically ONLY catch people breaking the law
(2) FOR wire-tapping of browns and political enemies that violates privacy and rarely catches people breaking the law

Quote :

"Surely nobody drives a vehicle other than the owner! I like how nobody mentions the many circumstances in which vehicles are driven by a different driver than the owner. This is an issue with stop light cameras also but the frequency of such situations is surely less since running a red light is likely to end with you in a crash. On the hand driving 56 on Western Blvd is not prohibitive hazard."

That's why you get a fine and not points on your license (at least this is how red light cameras work iirc).

Quote :

"Not to mention there are sometimes circumstances where speeding may be out of necessity and if unluckily caught an officer would surely use discretion.... Uh oh my kid cut open his arm, i better drive the speed limit on the highway so RedFlex does not give me a ticket"

Emergencies would be something pretty easy to prove.

6/5/2009 10:28:46 AM

Sometimes I wonder if HUR is real.

6/5/2009 10:36:59 AM

check out the comments in here

http://forums.gainesville.com/eve/forums?a=dl&f=7341026446&s=7771089265&x_id=906053009&x_subject=Rift+With+Germany+Is+Next+on+Diplomatic+Agenda&x_link=http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090605/ZNYT02/906053009

6/5/2009 10:45:25 AM

Quote :

"Does the world really need another charismatic German leader?"

LOL

6/5/2009 10:47:08 AM

one advantage of something like this: we won't waste as much police manpower that could be used to do real police to pull over speeders

6/5/2009 10:50:18 AM

Quote :

"Surely someone cruising 85mph down I40 in the middle of nowhere in light traffic is more dangerous than some soccer mom going the speedlimit but yapping on the cell phone while zig-zagging across lanes in rush hour traffic or Grandma going 55 in the left lane of a 4 lane 65mph freeway."

Good to hear you support a cell phone ban while driving too! My freedom to enjoy a safe drive is threatened by middle aged women daily.

6/5/2009 10:53:20 AM

Quote :

"Surely nobody drives a vehicle other than the owner! I like how nobody mentions the many circumstances in which vehicles are driven by a different driver than the owner. This is an issue with stop light cameras also but the frequency of such situations is surely less since running a red light is likely to end with you in a crash. On the hand driving 56 on Western Blvd is not prohibitive hazard."

Yeah. This is my main problem. If a cop pulls you over for speeding are they going to issue a ticket to the owner of the vehicle or the person driving it (in cases where person driving isn't the owner). If they aren't going to ticket the owner in that situation why is it ok to ticket the owner of a vehicle when it's caught speeding by a camera? I guess the burden of proof is skewed in favor of the state in this non criminal case.

They should be required to get a picture of the drivers face and use face recognition software on driver's license photos in a national database. That should push the project up to typical government pork standards. All to not even break even on their revenue generating goal.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : -]

6/5/2009 11:02:33 AM

no one seems to mind that parking tickets are tracked to the owner of the car and not whoever happened to be driving that day.

6/5/2009 11:12:47 AM

^ Parking Ticket = $20
Speeding Ticket = $120 + Potential Lawyer Fees + Potential Impact on Car Insurance + Potential Possible Points On Your Licence

Yah I wonder why people treat the two differently.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ``]

6/5/2009 11:19:32 AM

^^True. Maybe they should be.

^And correcting the course is much easier:

The person that borrowed your car will likely get the ticket on the window of the car, so they know they owe you.

If you get a speeding ticket in the mail who knows who was driving that day. And I think the camera scams work by not putting points on your license (in the case of red light cameras) for that very reason. Uncle Billy ran a red and your insurance just went up.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : -]

6/5/2009 11:20:08 AM

Weren't the traffic light cameras basically pushed out because a cop has to officially issue the ticket in order for it to be valid? Wouldn't it be the same for a speed-trap camera?

6/5/2009 11:23:45 AM

Quote :

"They should be required to get a picture of the drivers face and use face recognition software on driver's license photos in a national database."

No.

6/5/2009 11:24:37 AM

^You took that suggestion seriously?

6/5/2009 11:30:31 AM

You guys are missing the point. Speed cameras are AWESOME because they don't move around. You know exactly where they are so you can speed up until that point slow down for a few seconds until you pass it then speed right back up. This tactic has been working in Germany for years. Well except for the mobile speed camera vans that setup shop on country roads.

^^actually that is one of the requirements. You have to be able to see the drivers face and identify him because if you contest it you can show that its not you driving. But not this facial recognition software junk.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

6/5/2009 11:32:48 AM

Quote :

"never understood why conservative/Republican-types are simultaneously: (1) AGAINST highway / red light cameras that basically ONLY catch people breaking the law"

Who mentioned Republican???

The article specifically mentions that 48 communities use speed cameras outside the highway system. Some of these are in traditionally Red Conservative
Republican strongholds such at TN, AZ, Louisana, and NM.

Apparently the idea had enough support to at least make a ballot appearance for actual highway use in Montana and Mississippi but voters
struck down the idea.

I could easily if not more likely see the Neo-Con 'Obey the Law or Else' type Republicans pushing the Speed Camera system than just the
do-gooder Liberal "It's for your own safety" Democrats. After all Republicans under Cheney/Bush proved that they have no problem wiping
their assholes with the constitution of your rights; their base does not give a fuck as long as they did not rise taxes, allow gay marriage,
and did not steal their guns.

Whereas a spend happy liberal would see this opportunity to enforce safety that would help fund their healthcare and food stamps handouts
off of harassing vehicle owners after their teenage son borrows the car and gets pictured doing 71 mph on the Beltline.

Quote :

"Emergencies would be something pretty easy to prove. "

you miss the point you are supposed to be Innocent until proven Guilty.

Quote :

"That's why you get a fine and not points on your license"

Sounds more like extortion.

Do not forget to pay your protection money to Uncle Tony if you open your store in Little Italy. Uncle Tony would hate if "someone" put a cinder
block through your window and looted your store at 2am.

Quote :

"one advantage of something like this: we won't waste as much police manpower that could be used to do real police to pull over speeders "

The only reason we use it now is its more profitable for the city to harrass otherwise law abiding citizens collecting their ticket monies; than
trying to find real criminals.

Quote :

"Good to hear you support a cell phone ban while driving "

the same principle applies here too...
It's one thing of conservatively driving down the street calling your buddy b.c you forgot the direction to xyz restaurant or calling your
mom to say hi while cruising in light traffic on the freeway. On the otherhand if you are merging into rush-hour traffic, swerving across lanes to make
a u-turn even flicking off the startled motorist who honks at you all while talking on teh cell than you obviously need to put the fucking phone down.
The other reason i don't support a cell phone ban is that i think it encourages drivers to Text while driving which eventhough a lot more dangerous
is also a lot harder for a patrolling officer to see.

Quote :

"The person that borrowed your car will likely get the ticket on the window of the car, so they know they owe you. If you get a speeding ticket in the mail who knows who was driving that day"

Exactly unless the guy is a unhonest douche who u then should not be letting borrow your car in the first place.

If Chris lets me borrow his car, 20 days later, i'm not going to remember exactly what day and time i drove his Nissan Xterra when he comes bitching that i got him a speeding ticket for flying past a camera. For all i know the ticket was from the day after when he went by the same camera and he just wants to pin the fine on me.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : d]

6/5/2009 11:36:58 AM

well obviously he would just say slow down.

6/5/2009 12:16:50 PM

Quote :

"If you don't like the idea of sending revenue to your local government, don't break the law."

this guy could be a tww user

6/5/2009 12:26:20 PM

Not to mention that all you have to do to trick the camera is put a picture of someone else's license plate up over your's and hope you don't get caught... OR, you could put some kind of film over the plate that would make it impossible for the camera to get a clear picture while people can still see the plate clearly

6/5/2009 12:32:42 PM

Quote :

"you miss the point you are supposed to be Innocent until proven Guilty."

Yet somehow video evidence from a stationary, calibrated radar is not proof

6/5/2009 12:43:45 PM

If this goes through, I might have to start wearing my Bill Clinton mask again!

6/5/2009 12:47:40 PM

Video and radar can't tell who's driving the car, can it?

6/5/2009 12:48:06 PM

Video can. That's how the cameras in Japan work.

There's an episode of Top Gear where one of the hosts speeds past Japanese speed detectors, holding up a mask that looks like his producer.

6/5/2009 12:51:00 PM

Sure, maybe the cameras can see whose driving the car, but how do they distinguish between individuals? Don't tell me now we're talking about facial recognition software with a national database to go with this.

6/5/2009 12:52:19 PM

We already have face-recognition calculators they're called human beings

6/5/2009 12:55:13 PM

Quote :

"How Would Hitler stop Speeding"

He'd use trains.

6/5/2009 1:05:14 PM

Quote :

" Yet somehow video evidence from a stationary, calibrated radar is not proof "

What proof? That I am an owner of a 2007 Audi A4.
I am not guilty of shit unless you can prove I am driving.

By the way surely being purchased by cash strapped muncipal or state bureaucrats these camera/radar units will not be of the highest quality
or design. Electronics used for measurement drift over time. Is the state going to periodically calibrate every camera on the road??

Maybe in combination of my speedometer being 3 mph off (non-lineraly error at 65mph) in combination of the accuracing of the camera drifting..
I think i'm going 70 but I am really driving 73mph and the camera is 2.6mph off at this speed which it rounds up. Now all of a sudden
I am getting a ticket for going 11 over.

This is all forgetting issues such as multi-path interference that I can imagine occurs when u get high volume traffic on a wide freeway moving at
a high rate of speed. OH No's which car is it?? I know NC would be using doppler radar based systems instead of paying for the more reliable
higher quality LIDAR systems that are a lot more pricey.

We are also ignoring the question of why are some speed limits at the speed they are? What makes 55 the safe speed the 1st 4 miles of
the Beltline not 60? I could see use of these cameras putting pressure on city planners to arbitrarily reduce speed limits below the
recommended engineers speed limit so that they Can raise more money to offset teh cost of the cameras and tax revenue drop Make
sure you are extra safe!

Several studies have been conducted that the red light cameras though decrease reckless drivers from having T-bone collisions and red light runners from reckless
red lights; the incidents of otherwise "safe" drivers being rear ended increased since they will slam to halt even if it was more prudent
to drive through the yellow; thus being reckless, in order to avoid what they think will get them a "red light ticket"

Quote :

" A 2007 study of speed cameras on the Arizona State Route 101 in Scottsdale found a 50% reduction in the total crash frequency, with injuries falling by 40% [56]. However rear-end collisions increased by 55%. "

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

The act of just exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is not in itself dangerous.

6/5/2009 1:24:39 PM

Quote :

"I am not guilty of shit unless you can prove I am driving."

You're guilty of letting your equipment be used in an unsafe and unlawful manner. Unless the person driving your car stole it, you deserve a fine.

6/5/2009 1:26:25 PM

Honestly, I look forward to a time like in demolition man I can just put my car on auto-pilot and fall asleep or read or something. I don't see the point of speeding while commuting. And regarding the

Quote :

"people being stuck in fucking traffic caused by people slowing down for these stupid fucking things."

comment, I'm more interested in the amount of traffic that's caused by speeders trying to merge at the last second and people not moving through a bottleneck at a constant pace. If people would just slow the fuck down, we'd all get through the traffic quicker.

I seriously don't get the sense of entitlement.

Quote :

"If they ever make it so I can't speed, I'll no-shit move to another country."

I hear that, but take it to the race track. I don't hear you complaining that you can't just fire off rounds in public areas. Our highways and streets are for commuting, getting from A to B safely. I'm very interested in see a citation of all the studies proving that you're safer when you go faster.

Quote :

"A 2007 study of speed cameras on the Arizona State Route 101 in Scottsdale found a 50% reduction in the total crash frequency, with injuries falling by 40% [56]. However rear-end collisions increased by 55%. "

How is this an argument against the cameras? Less crashes overall, less injuries.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : hur's comment]

6/5/2009 1:27:22 PM

Quote :

"You're guilty of letting your equipment be used in an unsafe and unlawful manner. Unless the person driving your car stole it, you deserve a fine. "

its amazing how willing some people are to follow authority.

The state tells you not to drive over 65 on a road and anyone that does is clearly being "unsafe". Why? Because the state says so. And note that you Str8 didn't just say you will be punished. No, you will *deserve* to be punished. Why? You disobeyed the state.

6/5/2009 2:02:32 PM

So prove to me how > 65 is safer than < 65. My understanding of physics and human anatomy conflict with this notion.

To be fair, you didn't suggest necessarily that safer means faster. I just wanted to clarify that. However, following the law is inherently safer than not following the law, since following the law means going slower. Not to mention going at a speed that is predictable based on signs posted at regular intervals that everyone can read.

[Edited on June 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

6/5/2009 2:07:39 PM

^ I didn't say it was safer. But reducing the number of highway injuries/deaths is not our sole priority when formulating traffic policies. If it were, we could easily reduce the number of road injuries to almost zero by making it illegal to drive.

6/5/2009 2:13:13 PM

Quote :

"its amazing how willing some people are to follow authority. The state tells you not to drive over 65 on a road and anyone that does is clearly being "unsafe". Why? Because the state says so. And note that you Str8 didn't just say you will be punished. No, you will *deserve* to be punished. Why? You disobeyed the state."

Make that a disjunction, I suppose.

Look you fucking babies, this is really simple. Going too fast with a car can cause people serious injury. In fact, going too fast highly increases the chances of injuries occurring, and increases the chance of them being more deadly.

This means that, as a society, we have to set SOME limit. Whatever this is, we treat as being the limit (even though going JUST ONE OVER isn't much different than going JUST ONE UNDER -- not interested in addressing the Sorites paradox here).

Breaking this law is not the same as disobeying an unjust law, by and large, because the general rule when driving a car is that you should slow the fuck down.

6/5/2009 2:17:13 PM