NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

I mean, when you get right down to it, you're watching a crime being comitted and being completely unable to do anything about it.

So, how do you think we should stop these morons?

I thought of an interesting way: for every Kilometer over the speed limit you're clocked at, have your licence suspended for one day.

That way, the guy who just forgets himself and bumps over the limit has to go to work by bus for a week, while the hoon doing double the limit gets to drive again sometime next year.

Oh, and the penalty for driving while suspended? Lose your licence for life. And your car. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What do people think?

Double the speed limit already results in a lost license. Anything else is draconian. The dude weaving in and out of traffic will be just as pulled over if he was caught.

Around here driving the speed limit makes you a road hazard, average speed puts you about 5-10 mph over.

I don't want to have to take a bus for a week because of a difference in speedometer calibration and radar readings, either.

Weren't trees and walls invented to stop speeders? They also seem effective at stopping drunk drivers. :)

Weren't trees and walls invented to stop speeders? They also seem effective at stopping drunk drivers. :)

Very. Unfortunately, other cars are not quite as effective.

I like the idea of basing traffic fines on your income/net worth. To a person with megabucks a $200 traffic ticket is nothing. But to a person making $800 a month is it draconian. Making it a percentage of your income is much fairer as well as a greater deterent.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp
Driving as little as 15 MPH over the limit on an interstate highway now brings six license demerit points, a fine of up to $2500, up to one year in jail, and a new mandatory $1050 tax. The law also imposes an additional annual fee of up to $100 if a prior conviction leaves the motorist with a balance of eight demerit points, plus $75 for each additional point (up to $700 a year). The conviction in this example remains on the record for five years.

Other six-point convictions include "failing to give a proper signal," "passing a school bus" or "driving with an obstructed view." The same $1050 assessment applies, but the conviction remains on the record for eleven years.

Although the amount of the tax can add up quickly, the law forbids judges from reducing or suspending it in any way.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp

I like that! I especially like the fact that they don't make any bones about it being a revenue-raiser.

I like the idea of basing traffic fines on your income/net worth. To a person with megabucks a $200 traffic ticket is nothing. But to a person making $800 a month is it draconian. Making it a percentage of your income is much fairer as well as a greater deterent.
I've liked this idea when I first heard about it.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp

Fuck that noise. I'm not driving in Virginia, a cop on a bad day can pretty much send me to the poor house. No thanks.

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name;12811637]I've liked this idea when I first heard about it.
QUOTE]

Indeed. I seem to recall hearing that Germany has law like that. Though I'm not positive.

What do people think?

I have a better idea. You know those things that flash up with lights that spell out "slow down" or "reduce speed" or something when you're going over the speed limit (well we have them in England anyway).

Like that, except, instead of a sign, the road tilts up into a ramp and your car goes flying. Best to put near a bend so that the car won't hit people on the road ahead.

Don't piss around, use one of these (http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww2-allied/boyes-anti-tank.jpg) and the problem will stop forever!

Indeed. I seem to recall hearing that Germany has law like that. Though I'm not positive.
Yeah, that's where I heard about it too.

Don't piss around, use one of these (http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww2-allied/boyes-anti-tank.jpg) and the problem will stop forever!

Dude, one of those will go through the speeder, his car, the next car, the bus, the cement truck...

Like I said, it would permanently correct any wrong doing.

Fines based both on how far over the limit you are and how much you make per year.

For example, for someone on around average wage, the fine would be:

Speed > Limit + 10% = 3% of income fine + 2 points
Speed > Limit + 20% = 4% of income fine + 2 points
Speed > Limit + 30% = 5% of income fine + 5 points
Speed > Limit + 40% = 6% of income fine + 5 points
Speed > Limit + 50% = 7% of income fine + 8 points
Speed > Limit + 60% = 8% of income fine + 8 points
Speed > Limit + 70% = 9% of income fine + 8 points
Speed > Limit + 80% = 10% of income fine + 10 points
Speed > Limit + 90% = 11% of income fine + 10 points
Speed > Limit + 100% = 12% of income fine + automatic ban (12 points)

Then for someone on £60k + you might have fines of 6%,7%,8% etc.

Dude, one of those will go through the speeder, his car, the next car, the bus, the cement truck...
NA it will go through the engin block and that is about it.

As for the guy that swerves yes. But I also believe in Tactical Driving. In order to use the Speeding Lane that is separate from the regular freeway you need to take and pass a tactical Driving course put on by the Police Department. Then you get a special License plate or a special sticker you put on your plate. Stating you passed the course and that you can drive in the special lane.

The only way to get into said lain is via "tool Booth"

I live in California the Freeway speeds range from 55-70 I drive 85-90, but I don't swerve in and out of lanes I stick put.

Sharp bends :)

Trees. Trees stop cars. We tried putting other cars on the road and people on the sidewalk. In fact, everyone tried it. Didn't work too well. People make horrible trees.

Trees, on the other hand, are known to stop speeders. More effective than people.

I got it! How about along the roads we have speed guns and if someone is speeding, then down the road these will pop up.

http://www.hooverfence.com/catalog/entry_systems/traffic-control/images/spike-out.jpg

They will go back down after being hit, and you never know where they are because they will be completely hidden in the road, it would be awesome.

I got it! How about along the roads we have speed guns and if someone is speeding, then down the road these will pop up.

http://www.hooverfence.com/catalog/entry_systems/traffic-control/images/spike-out.jpg

They will go back down after being hit, and you never know where they are because they will be completely hidden in the road, it would be awesome.

Yeah, and when the big SUV spins out of control and demolishes that small car with the mum and two kids in it we can all sit around and have a good chuckle.

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

I mean, when you get right down to it, you're watching a crime being comitted and being completely unable to do anything about it.

So, how do you think we should stop these morons?

I thought of an interesting way: for every Kilometer over the speed limit you're clocked at, have your licence suspended for one day.

That way, the guy who just forgets himself and bumps over the limit has to go to work by bus for a week, while the hoon doing double the limit gets to drive again sometime next year.

Oh, and the penalty for driving while suspended? Lose your licence for life. And your car. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What do people think?
Speeding isn't what we need to control. Bad driving is far more dangerous than fast driving.

Yeah, and when the big SUV spins out of control and demolishes that small car with the mum and two kids in it we can all sit around and have a good chuckle.

It's been my experience that the mom and two kids are the one in the SUV.

It's been my experience that the mom and two kids are the one in the SUV.

In some cases, but they're far more likely to be in the small car.

In some cases, but they're far more likely to be in the small car.

Well like I said, in my experience, and that pretty much just what I see on the roads in North Carolina, USA.

How about ordering car companies to cap the limit to 60 mph. any attempt to go faster would only burn fuel.

Exceptions would be emergency vehicles.

How about ordering car companies to cap the limit to 60 mph. any attempt to go faster would only burn fuel.

Exceptions would be emergency vehicles.

I hope that's a joke.

If we had more speed cameras that catch EVERYONE speeding over the limit, no one would take the risk because its an automatic fine with no chance of saying you werent speeding or avoiding it.

Don't you have your own lives to worry about? Are they that boring that you need to care what other people do?

*cue silly excuse about "they might crash into me"*

The most dangerous thing on the road I have personally encountered is absolutely unpredictable old people who can't control their bodies let alone their car.

The USA desperately needs an autobahn.

Don't you have your own lives to worry about? Are they that boring that you need to care what other people do?

*cue silly excuse about "they might crash into me"*

The most dangerous thing on the road I have personally encountered is absolutely unpredictable old people who can't control their bodies let alone their car.

Thats honestly your best argument?

If we had more speed cameras that catch EVERYONE speeding over the limit, no one would take the risk because its an automatic fine with no chance of saying you werent speeding or avoiding it.

Which, IMHO violate one's Constitutional right to face one's accuser.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v628/SaintB/AirPatrol.jpg
This is how you enforce speed limits.

Thats honestly your best argument?
So far I haven't needed one. All I hear is that speeders "annoy" other people, and it's been established that there is no right not to be offended.

How about: if it was established that you were speeding after an accident, you get much bigger penalties than otherwise, and that's it. You'd save a bunch in policing (though I suppose you'd lose out on speed camera earnings :eek:) and it would be a lot fairer than punishing people for "annoying" others.

Plus, maybe there should be annual driving tests that allow you to move up skill levels by gaining more situational awareness and car control, and the higher the skill level the lower the punishment if something does happen because the assumption is that if it was possible to avoid the accident, it would have been avoided.

And maybe there should be rules taking into account the sort of car. 100 km/h in a 30 year old Volvo is quite different from the same speed in a Ferrari in terms of electronic aides, braking distance, safety equipment etc.

So yeah, I've got plenty of ideas. They don't fit the "speed is teh ebil" bill though.

So far I haven't needed one. All I hear is that speeders "annoy" other people, and it's been established that there is no right not to be offended.


I think it would be more accurate to say that speeders annoy people because of the risk they pose on the roads

I think it would be more accurate to say that speeders annoy people because of the risk they pose on the roads
Though that's a dangerous path to go down. Lots of things other people do pose risk to me, but that doesn't mean I should be going around outlawing them.

And besides, there's lots of factors impacting just how much risk speed poses to oneself and others. "Let's work out how to stop these morons" doesn't seem to take account of that.

Uhh.. I still like my suggestion.

Don't you have your own lives to worry about? Are they that boring that you need to care what other people do?

*cue silly excuse about "they might crash into me"*

The most dangerous thing on the road I have personally encountered is absolutely unpredictable old people who can't control their bodies let alone their car.
And you haven't even driven in South Florida@! Speed limit enforcement is always about the revenue, never about the safety. If we were really worried about safety, we'd have stop-light cameras in far more places than we do now. Not to mention that we would see better enforcement of wreckless driving laws like lane changes and tailgating.

I hope that's a joke.kinda.

seriously tho... what legal reason would you have to drive over 60 mph? (or whatever the highest posted speed limit of your country)

if the fastest you can go is 60 mph, then police, who would be able to overtake you easily, would and could. thus eliminating dangerous high speed persuits.

of course, I'm only talking about street legal cars. Nascars and other circuit cars won't have the cap.

Which, IMHO violate one's Constitutional right to face one's accuser. tried that here in Hawaii. there's also the fact that the ticket is made out to the registered owner of the car. so if your friend was borrowing it and they drove over the speed limit.... you're still stuck with the ticket.

and some enterprising young people make a cover for the licence plate. sure you can still read the plates, but any photo of the plates would be blurred.

miles of open road should not be 35 mph (as it is where i lise) just because a few people decided to put houses up there.

it's still countryside, with a little infection of suburbia.

so if you go for universal enforcement, make the limits fair beforehand.

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

It's the weaving that's dangerous, not the speeding especially.

What do people think?

I think that speeding slightly isn't as half as dangerous as it is made out to be, and there are far worse threats on the road.

Like a lot of things it is context dependent. Speeding on a quiet motorway isn't the same as speeding in a school zone around 3:30 pm

I think it would be more accurate to say that speeders annoy people because of the risk they pose on the roads

Depends how good a driver they are.

Depends how good a driver they are.

Which is quite a hard thing to judge really and would require a lot more resources were you to try and enforce a tiered system of speeds

miles of open road should not be 35 mph (as it is where i lise) just because a few people decided to put houses up there.


Surely it is just that limit near the actual houses?

So hardly that much of a nuisance

Which is quite a hard thing to judge really and would require a lot more resources were you to try and enforce a tiered system of speeds

Not really. I think the system we have in this country is pretty good. Though I would like the national speed limit could be increased a bit. Though it is not something that I think about a lot.

People posing a risk to others are the problem. Like an idiot I saw on the motorway just yesterday. Doing 35mph on the M62

Just make the speed limit higher.

People posing a risk to others are the problem. Like an idiot I saw on the motorway just yesterday. Doing 35mph on the M62

You would deem that the height of idiocy until you're told that, for some, the maximum speed they are legally allowed to do is 45, no matter where they are. In a 30 they do 30, obviously, and in a 40 they can do 40, but anywhere faster than that and they are limited to doing 45. Even motorways.

Weren't trees and walls invented to stop speeders? They also seem effective at stopping drunk drivers. :)

Tow trucks with this hazard lights on while on the shoulder are also effective at stopping drunk drivers.

What? Too soon for a Josh Hancock joke?

You would deem that the height of idiocy until you're told that, for some, the maximum speed they are legally allowed to do is 45, no matter where they are. In a 30 they do 30, obviously, and in a 40 they can do 40, but anywhere faster than that and they are limited to doing 45. Even motorways.

Really?

Do you have a link the relevent law. So I can see what the criteria for this are for. I'll admit I have never heard of such a thing, though I did suspect it could be something like that, but I couldn't see any reason for that. Anyway, 35 is a lot slower than 35. Still dangerous though

Is there any way I can get out of this without egg on my face? :)

I've found a few pages, but they all conform to what is in the highway code. :(
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm

Really?

Do you have a link the relevent law. So I can see what the criteria for this are for. I'll admit I have never heard of such a thing, though I did suspect it could be something like that, but I couldn't see any reason for that. Anyway, 35 is a lot slower than 35. Still dangerous though

Is there any way I can get out of this without egg on my face? :)

It's the law in Northern Ireland.

For one year after you pass your driving test, you have to display orange "R" plates at the front and rear of the car (in the same way as you display "L"s when learning).

Both L drivers and R drivers are restricted to 45mph maximum speed. Of course, this doesn't (as far as I know) apply to drivers who passed their test in other jurisdictions.

This from the DVLNI (Driver and Vehicle Licencing Northern Ireland) website (http://www.dvlni.gov.uk/drivers/learndrive_Rplates.htm):
After passing the driving test for a motor car or motorcycle, you must display amber ‘R’ plates for a period of one year from the date of passing the test.

The plates MUST conform to legal specifications and MUST be clearly visible to others from in front of the vehicle and from behind. Plates should be removed or covered when not being driven by a restricted driver.

The maximum permitted speed for any vehicle displaying R plates is 45 mph, irrespective of whether or not the vehicle is being driven by a restricted driver.

It's absolutely absurd. These are the people possibly most likely to be driving small, old, and relatively unsafe cars (due to the ridiculous insurance costs for anything else), and they're being forced to drive at dangerously low speeds on motorways. Can you imagine going down the motorway at 45, having just past your test (and not having been legally allowed to drive on a motorway until you passed), in a rickity old pile of junk that's all you could afford, and having bigger cars, vans, and lorries fly past you are nearly double your speed? Madness.

What do people think?

I think that cars that do not have at least 200bhp/ton should be banned from the passing lane.

Edit: Upon further review I have tightened the standards.

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

I mean, when you get right down to it, you're watching a crime being comitted and being completely unable to do anything about it.

So, how do you think we should stop these morons?

I thought of an interesting way: for every Kilometer over the speed limit you're clocked at, have your licence suspended for one day.

That way, the guy who just forgets himself and bumps over the limit has to go to work by bus for a week, while the hoon doing double the limit gets to drive again sometime next year.

Oh, and the penalty for driving while suspended? Lose your licence for life. And your car. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What do people think?

I have just the solution. Have small computers in every area with a speed limit and every vehicle, and have airbags in the sides of the car or have an inflatable fist in the drivers side that activates only when the computer detects speeding. That way once te speed limit is broken the airbags make passangers bash their heads together or an inflatable fist knocks the driver one. :p

Thats honestly your best argument?

It's fucking spot on though.

Personally, I would ban automatic transmissions. That would make the roads a lot safer.

It's fucking spot on though.

Personally, I would ban automatic transmissions. That would make the roads a lot safer.

Finding a manual is pretty rare in North America. What's more unsafe than the speeding are the people who seem to think its cool to drive 20 km/h below the speed limit.
--Edit--
Even worse are the people who as soon as you've turned on your signal and checked the blind spot and started to merge hop into your blind spot.

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

I mean, when you get right down to it, you're watching a crime being comitted and being completely unable to do anything about it.

So, how do you think we should stop these morons?

I thought of an interesting way: for every Kilometer over the speed limit you're clocked at, have your licence suspended for one day.

That way, the guy who just forgets himself and bumps over the limit has to go to work by bus for a week, while the hoon doing double the limit gets to drive again sometime next year.

Oh, and the penalty for driving while suspended? Lose your licence for life. And your car. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

What do people think?

What's even more dangerous than that is driving in Rhode Island. This is the place where a person can be doing 75 on the highway (with nobody in front of him, but cars behind him), and all of a sudden, for no reason, he rapidly slows down to 55. Since everyone else is going with the flow of traffic (75 mph), everyone else behind him has to hit their brakes hard.

Hence the reason I hate driving in Rhode Island. I feel like I'm going to have an aneurysm every time I find myself there.

More dangerous than 10 over the limit are the jackasses driving the limit or slower in any lane but the right. In a 3-lane interstate, if you're not as fast as the flow of traffic, get the fuck over to the right, period.

Inattention at any speed kills more people than mere speeding ever will. Speed is only a threat with an idiot behind the wheel (problem is, there are many, many idiots). I support the fine multiplier if a violation or accident was cited and excessive speed was a factor.

0-10 over = no multiplier
11-20 = x2
21-30 = x3
31-40 = x4
etc.

Aggressive driving = $500. Clocked at 23 over the limit when spotted = speeding modifier of x3. $1500 ticket -- an amount that usually represents about 10-15 speeders pulled over (with the man-hours and resources that takes), but with only one traffic stop. This in addition to the usual auto insurance ass-ramming as well.

Maybe if they increased the speed limit from 65 to 70 here, then i wouldn't speed at 95 mph!:p

Maybe if they increased the speed limit from 65 to 70 here, then i wouldn't speed at 95 mph!:p

Illinois has to be the biggest pain in the ass to drive through for speed traps - them and Ohio. Most states, you can travel a reasonable 75-80 without worry, I find.

you guys have it too easy...
Tolerance here is 3km (2mph?) over the posted limit or a fine of $125 and 3 demerit points, 10km (6mph) is $220 and 6 points (out of 13) and more than 25kph (15mph) over is instant loss of license and i think around $500 in fines.
We have mobile traffic cameras (unmarked), fixed cameras on freeways on most overpasses and helicopter units that can scan 5km sections of freeway. All cameras are instant speed and point to point (trip average speed) cameras. Furthermore most major intersections are getting redlight/speed cameras installed that ping you on speed or jumping the lights (v. good imo), if doing both get two tickets.

Finally we have new anti hoon laws that state anyone driving in an extremely dangerous manner (too fast, out of control, dragging etc (cop discretion i think, not sure)) gets the vehicle (even if they are not the owner) impounded for 2 days (first offense), a week (second offense) or permenantly confiscated and sold/crushed depending on the road legal status of it.

Fines based both on how far over the limit you are and how much you make per year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

Amen.

that's easy. don't patch the potholes and let them break an axil.

also support REAL public transportation alternatives and let the oil and auto makers pave their own roads.

in cameroi we don't stop anyone from owning anything, or opperating a motor vehicule more or less however they please. the few hobbiests who build their own. which is the only way there is to get one.

no auto industry (what other places might be auto plants, in cameroi make mini-railway vehicules). no paved roads. no gas stations. no problem.

=^^=
.../\...

you do know this is general - not II or NS, right?

It's the law in Northern Ireland.

For one year after you pass your driving test, you have to display orange "R" plates at the front and rear of the car (in the same way as you display "L"s when learning).

Both L drivers and R drivers are restricted to 45mph maximum speed. Of course, this doesn't (as far as I know) apply to drivers who passed their test in other jurisdictions.

This from the DVLNI (Driver and Vehicle Licencing Northern Ireland) website (http://www.dvlni.gov.uk/drivers/learndrive_Rplates.htm):


It's absolutely absurd. These are the people possibly most likely to be driving small, old, and relatively unsafe cars (due to the ridiculous insurance costs for anything else), and they're being forced to drive at dangerously low speeds on motorways. Can you imagine going down the motorway at 45, having just past your test (and not having been legally allowed to drive on a motorway until you passed), in a rickity old pile of junk that's all you could afford, and having bigger cars, vans, and lorries fly past you are nearly double your speed? Madness.

Wow.

Well since it was the M62 and there were no amber "R" plates on, I feel I haev washed the egg off :).

Though this seems like a strange regulation. I remember when I passed my test, the idea of going on the motorway (especially the motorways around Manchester) was scary enough. I don't think I could have done it knowing I'd have to drive significantly lower then everyone else. It just seems dangerous to me.

Do you know if this is a heavily enforced regulation, or is there widespread evasion of it?

Here in the US, EVERYONE drives a good 5-10 mph (8-16 kph) over the speed limit.

Wow.

Well since it was the M62 and there were no amber "R" plates on, I feel I haev washed the egg off :).

Though this seems like a strange regulation. I remember when I passed my test, the idea of going on the motorway (especially the motorways around Manchester) was scary enough. I don't think I could have done it knowing I'd have to drive significantly lower then everyone else. It just seems dangerous to me.

Do you know if this is a heavily enforced regulation, or is there widespread evasion of it?

It's fairly heavily enforced. If they catch you avoiding it then (I think) you lose your licence. And you're not insured if you drive without the plates up, as they're a condition of your licence, so you can be done for driving without valid insurance. Some evade it, but not that many. Not really worth the risk.

The one thing is that fixed speed cameras can't tell if you're meant to have R plates up, so you won't get a ticket from them for doing 55 in a 60 when you're only meant to do 45.

I don't know about you, but the sight of some halfwit weaving through traffic in his power machine, racking up the miles to when he kills himself, annoys the heck out of me.

Problem is, he doesn't kill himself, he kills other people also.


I thought of an interesting way: for every Kilometer over the speed limit you're clocked at, have your licence suspended for one day.

Already done here in Italy (coupons on the driving licence, you lose coupons when you infringe traffic law, once you lose 20 coupons, licence is retired and you have to go to driving school again), similar to Germany. Doesn't work very much against speeding, sadly.


I think that the main problem with speeding is tracking the speed of the car. The best option would be to have a radio transponder in every damn car, transmitting the plate number, current speed and location. Then lots of receivers (it would work like the mobile phone cells) and an automated system that sends fines and keeps track of the infractions.

Also, prohibiting the industry to commercialise car that go faster than the maximum speed limit of a motorway (130 km/h in Italy) could be a good idea.

This is how you stop speeders:

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=179880

Stretch ropes across trees for the scouts to run into.

*nods*

[/obscure Star Wars reference]

Problem is, he doesn't kill himself, he kills other people also.



Already done here in Italy (coupons on the driving licence, you lose coupons when you infringe traffic law, once you lose 20 coupons, licence is retired and you have to go to driving school again), similar to Germany. Doesn't work very much against speeding, sadly.


I think that the main problem with speeding is tracking the speed of the car. The best option would be to have a radio transponder in every damn car, transmitting the plate number, current speed and location. Then lots of receivers (it would work like the mobile phone cells) and an automated system that sends fines and keeps track of the infractions.

Also, prohibiting the industry to commercialise car that go faster than the maximum speed limit of a motorway (130 km/h in Italy) could be a good idea.

NO!

I rcan't allow anyone that much power. Think how easily that can be misused.

Sorry, but my 1984 alarm went off. Scary sh*t, that is.

I think that the main problem with speeding is tracking the speed of the car. The best option would be to have a radio transponder in every damn car, transmitting the plate number, current speed and location. Then lots of receivers (it would work like the mobile phone cells) and an automated system that sends fines and keeps track of the infractions.


Apparently you are not the only thinking upon those lines:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3178579.stm


(I think that is the right link. My internet has gone weird :S)

Speed is not dangerous - differences in speed and reckless driving are dangerous.

It is typical for everyone to drive around 80-90mph on the highway. If you drive any slower, unless you are in the rightmost lane, you are a navigation hazard. The danger comes not from people trying to get to and from work, but from people reading (yes, as in holding a book in front of the steering wheel - i've seen it a few times) or putting on their makeup while driving. People who weave in and out of traffic (what we call 'aggressive driving' here) constantly changing lanes cause accidents - not the speed everyone is traveling at.

It is like prohibiting back seats in cars to curb teenage pregnancy.

The problem is that the state has gotten used to having that revenue stream - it is about getting more money and not at all about safety.

There was an interesting paper done a while back that showed red-light cameras actually make intersections less safe. Turns out it causes two things - the length of the yellow light tends to get shortened to ridiculous times (to get more tickets) and people, afraid of getting a ticket, slam on their brakes hard the moment a light turns yellow and thus getting rear ended or losing control of the car. This is actual proof that, in the real world, those cameras are only about generating funding and have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

A cop friend of mine used to bitch about how they were constantly pushed to set up speed traps instead of doing anything else - in particular there was a neighborhood that had a lot of break-ins during the day (because everyone was at work, the neighborhood was almost always completely empty from 8 to 6) so the cops would just take a slow drive through the neighborhood a couple times a day on their way to and from other places. Robberies dropped from 2 or 3 a day to almost nothing. Of course they got reprimanded because the number of speeding tickets they were writing fell. After being forced to spend all the time trying to write tickets, robberies went right back up.

Fortunately the state I live in has declared cameras unconstitutional. DC keeps them because it provides a lot of money for the city - and it is mostly commuters from Maryland and Virginia who pay it, so residents don't care about the constant findings that they are almost always miscalibrated to generate more money.

yes and no..

i accept that some speed cameras are purely revenue generation. However all cameras here are properly calibrated, also every intersection i have seen with a red light camera has enough time to get there on "deep" yellow and still clear it.

The only issue i really have with our camera's was dropping the residential speed limits to 50kph with many roads then dropped to 40kph AND a reduction of tolerance to 3kph only.

NO!
I rcan't allow anyone that much power. Think how easily that can be misused.

Sorry, but my 1984 alarm went off. Scary sh*t, that is.

Why? When you drive a car, you have a plate number on it. People (including the police) can look into your car and recognise your face. So what?
Also, notice that I spoke of registration of the plate number, not of the name of the driver. This way, we could block the car and fine the proprietor without registering people's names, just cars. Your car, your responsibility.

As the humans/sqare km ratio goes up, we have to give up some of our "liberties" (although I doubt that a potentially criminal behaviour like speeding should be considered a "liberty") to the community's safety. My freedom ends where my neighbour's begins.

Speed is not dangerous - differences in speed and reckless driving are dangerous.

Ok, but one of the main components of reckless driving IS speed. People tend to drive cars to speeds that are above the limit of their reflexes (in case of sudden accidents) or of their driving skills (an unexpected curve after a long straight road).

Also, most car crashes (at least, here in Italy) and the most victims aren't on the motorways. It is on secondary country roads at Saturday night, and shortly before and after the rush hour on city streets. And most of the cars crash into each other or into something or into someone (yes, pedestrians get killed even if they are on the pavements) usually while speeding (typically, 90 km/h against a 50 km/h limit in the city, >130 km/h against 90 km/h limit on country roads).


There was an interesting paper done a while back that showed red-light cameras actually make intersections less safe. Turns out it causes two things - the length of the yellow light tends to get shortened to ridiculous times (to get more tickets) and people, afraid of getting a ticket, slam on their brakes hard the moment a light turns yellow and thus getting rear ended or losing control of the car.

:rolleyes: They get rear ended NOT because they braked. They get rear ended because the jerk that was driving behind them WAS TOO DAMN CLOSE and WASN'T PAYING BLOODY ATTENTION!
And they lose control by braking hard because they were clearly driving too fast for that road (or own driving skills).

I've liked this idea when I first heard about it.


Fuck that noise. I'm not driving in Virginia, a cop on a bad day can pretty much send me to the poor house. No thanks.


That is a rediculous amount of money for a speeding ticket. Leave it to a politian to figure out another way to steal money from the working class.

*...*

I think that the main problem with speeding is tracking the speed of the car. The best option would be to have a radio transponder in every damn car, transmitting the plate number, current speed and location. Then lots of receivers (it would work like the mobile phone cells) and an automated system that sends fines and keeps track of the infractions.

*...*

As Minaris said, who would you trust with that information?

I suggest sealed GPS-based recorders, thoroughly developed in open source, which can not transmit at all unless the speed limit has been exceeded. They need to be able to recieve radio signals in order to know the local speed limit. Could display the local limit and upcoming changes right there on your dash.

Of course the objection of tampering will be raised. Wouldn't any self-respecting speeder just stop the thing from ever transmitting? For this reason it must be tamper-evident, and visible on the outside of the car. I suggest requiring it be installed in a quadrapetal hood adornment. In order to be readily verifiable, it must be quite large and visible from any direction, for instance a moose. This would have the added advantage of making driving unsafe at any speed, causing the driver to voluntarily slow down.

Why? When you drive a car, you have a plate number on it. People (including the police) can look into your car and recognise your face. So what?

Nah, down here we get a bit of mud on the numberplate and wear a proper hat while driving. :p