Hacker News Reader

Comment by TomMarius | Hacker News Reader

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

This is also the case in Central and Eastern Europe.

EDIT: Please read what I cited properly. The citation includes the "Some protesters feel ..." part, which is what I meant - that many people in central and eastern Europe feel the same, not that I feel they're right (what I think is irrelevant).

View on HN

I lived near one of the major crossroads in one of the biggest German cities. The speed camera they put up made a change between waking up 4 times at night because of illegal street races and beeing able to sleep uninterrupted till the lorries start to drive in the early morning.

I am not saying that this isn't a tool to generate revenue, but it certainly can make a difference for some of the people living there.

However the weirdest thing is, when a street feels like you can drive 80km/h but you have to go 30km/h "just because". People don't like that. You shouldn't just put up signs and speed cameras on a perfectly fine street. You have to alter the street too. Make it narrower, etc. People will then drive slow without problems.

Speed cameras are not toll booths. They do not take money from people indiscriminately but only from the ones that think that they can get away with speeding. (Unfortunately speeding seems almost necessary for e.g. delivery drivers which are in turn not the most well-paid jobs.)

Problem is rather how the fines are structured. 50€ might be a disaster for someone living on welfare while it's pocket change for others. If I remember correctly Finland countered this by making traffic fines daily rates of income.

Yes, many people think that but for my part, I have really noticed a big decrease in speeding since these fixed speed cameras have been put into place, in the last 15 years or so.

It was not unusual to have people drive 150 km/h or so on the 110 speedways I was taking then, or 110 on the 90 countryside roads. Nowadays it seems like only few people break speed limits by such margins. In Belgium however (where I live now) there are speedcams as well but I notice a lot more speeding.

I think the difference is at least partly due to the points permit. French drivers get a total of 12 points and lose at least 2 points from any speeding, while Belgians only get a fine, which probably doesn't give a lot of incentive to people who have enough money to just pay the fine.

> and lose at least 2 points from any speeding

(Nitpicking: actually only one point if driving less then 20 km/h above the limit.)

Of course not all speed cameras are bad. However in my country there is a lot of speed cameras right before a town ends - that means that people will start slowly speeding up from 50 km/h to 90 km/h and thus the camera will catch them going 60 km/h and give them a pointless fine. Same thing at the beginning - what is the point (except for money) in fining people who didn't brake soon/hard enough so they entered the town going 60 km/h? Why not place these cameras a little bit more inside the town?

Interestingly here in my native Finland, traffic tickets for major violations are progressive. So for a low income driver, major speeding might lose your license for months, but only cost you 150 €. The same infraction would cost a upper-middle income individual 15 000 €. Apparently the biggest speeding ticket written in here has been 170 000 €.

I have very mixed feelings about this. I have been caught by a money-making camera myself(middle of a forest in rural Poland, far away from any houses, and yet it was still a "built-up" area with speed limit of 50km/h, because technically there wasn't a sign ending it after leaving the last town few km back), but on the other hand, there's so many people speeding in cities, frequently doing 100km/h or above on very busy streets, that I am all for building more speed cameras in those places.

And then:

" solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor."

Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.

Let's assume poor and rich are equally likely to speed (except the rich who only move in limos or helis). Flat fees still hurt the poor more, because they cut into living expenses. To be truly egalitarian, these fees should be a % of income and a % of wealth.

Which would be fair, because the goal of these things is to avoid misbehaviour with potentially deadly consequences. There is no reason someone poor should pay 40% of their monthly paycheck while someone rich pays with <1% of their montly paycheck.

This is why in a lot of european nations on top of the fines you have a point-based system – if you have three points you get your driving license revoked and you will have it revoked for some time and then you have to do some driving tests again.

This actually works quite well in preventing bad behaviour (assuming you have a non corrupt police), but one could argue that it is a much, much worse punishment to the poor again (it can potentially destroy them economically, including the loss of income source etc).

That is why there is also (in France at least) a system of points on the driving license. Everybody has the same count (12) at the beginning and will lose an equal amount in case of an infraction. If you lose all of them your license is suspended.

> Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.

This is a strange interpretation of the statement. I would've assumed that the point being made is similar to that about the tax on cigarettes - the cost of a penalty charge is less significant to a rich person.

yes, it's a mixed bag.

In some places the cameras are signaled up to 500m before, and are very visible with yellow reflective stripes. There is often one at the entrance of towns to force drivers to adapt their speeds, and it works.

Then some are clearly placed with malice, it really depends.

> Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true.

I think an issue would be that poor people will drive more. Middle class population will tend to be more urban and rely on public transportation for day to day use, even if they still own a car and may do a few trips during the week.

People in remote areas will be more at the extreme: crazy rich or pretty poor, and the poor in these area will have to drive everywhere to get almost anything, thus being more subject to speed traps. (anecdotaly almost everyone speeds way over the limit, some big highway feel like the autobahn sometimes)

> anecdotaly almost everyone speeds way over the limit, some big highway feel like the autobahn sometimes

Yes! I don't understand why the government doesn't accept the reality and doesn't (try to) raise the speed limit. Now everyone is speeding and when they see something remotely alike an undercover police car they brake hard, creating very dangerous situations for all people around; you could argue "it's their fault, they're speeding" - yes, but why keep the limit low?

I guess it's specifically because the police know that people will speed, but also that most people are speeding only a bit(10-20%). So instead of setting the limit at 100km/h, they set the limit to 80km/h knowing that most people will do 100km/h anyway. If they set the limit to 100km/h at least some people would be doing 120km/h.

That would make sense in the past, but now there are speed radars everywhere. Isn't now the time to change the approach?

Given what you said is true, wouldn't it make sense to black out just the malicious ones? Unless this says that all the ones vandalized (60% of speed cameras) are actually for the sole purpose of money making?

Speed cameras do work but the fines should be structured in a more fair way. "Rich" people with expensive cars don't care, same goes for parking fines.

As much I hate speed cameras (and as much as I sympathize with the yellow vests), they are usually more than justified.

As a car driver you experience much less of the negative side-effects of your reckless driving than the rule-abiding drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and people living next to the streets.

Look at speed cameras as police's automation solution for the problem of what to do when road signs aren't working. They are part of an evolution and if evolution has to account for destruction of these cameras then more nuanced models will get their market share (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luc-Z29KUfU).

Or we might end up with more Orwellian ways like autonomous traffic drones or the government having a direct link to your car, monitoring your every move, speed etc.

So, yeah, I don't like em but I'm fine with speed cameras.

You are assuming that everyone who gets caught by a camera is driving recklessly

the poor simply can respect the rules like the rich, right?

you got it wrong: the rich will pay, but that amount means nothing to them.

That's where the penalty points come in - you can't pay your way out of losing your licence once you get enough of them. The fine might be meaningless but having to stop driving for 12 months is not.

Penalty points also disproportionately affect the poor, who are more likely to depend on their driving license for their income

So what do you propose? That we punish people who put others in danger less because they are poor? Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor. They aren't any less of a danger just because they have a family that depends on them. Someone they hit won't be any less dead because the driver has 5 children and mountains of debt.

> Someone moving at 100km/h through a city isn't any less likely to kill someone when hit just because they are poor.

Actually we could argue that it's more likely due to the poor average condition and old age of their cars. A new Mercedes brakes much better than a 20 year old Skoda and usually has auto-braking systems and braking force enhancers.

However "going through a city" is very general. There are several actual highways (by law as well as by construction standards) in Prague going through the city where the speed limit (70 km/h) is frequently broken with no possible victims - the exact same road has 130 km/h limit outside the city.

That speed limit might be more noise related. So the harm is much different, but the victims are people living nearby.

Just like moving next to an airport and then complaining about the noise. Those same victims likely received a discount on property price as compensation.

Seeing as it's Prague, the chances are very good that the houses were built long before cars were a thing.

And I don't even understand your assumption - of course you should be complaining about noise levels if they are unacceptable, no matter if you just moved next to an airport or if you lived there for the past 50 years. Same as moving next to a pub or a night club - why does it matter that you just moved next to it, if the local laws governing noise levels at certain times existed for decades? Either the club/pub/airport brakes those laws or it doesn't - your personal length of habitation in the area has nothing to do with it.

Most of the roads I'm talking about are not near houses and/or underground. There are several roads where it indeed is noise related, but these ones are 60km/h only.

They will still loose points on their driving license. Everybody has the same amount (and not much).

I mean, if the speed limit says 50km/h, then you should be doing 50km/h, regardless of the size of your bank account. If someone hits a pedestrian and kills them because they were doing twice the speed limit, "yeah but I'm poor" is not a valid defence.

That's not the point. It costs a poor person more to speed because they have less money. Conversely it costs a rich person less to speed.

The issue is easily solved by making the fine proportional to your income, as it already is in many European countries. And then the penalty points hurt equally because you will lose your licence regardless of how rich your are once you get enough points.

The revoking of a license also hurts poor people improportionally more. If you depend on your car and need it to get to your job, loosing the ability to drive will: A) make you loose your job B) go in debt to solve your mobility problem C) make you do stupid things like driving without license D) maybe you are lucky and there is cheap public transport or it is close enough for cycling

For a rich person A to C are usually not a problem. Just take a taxi.

But if someone is putting others at danger, they shouldn't be treated with mercy just because they are poor. If you drive dangerously why does it matter that you need your car to feed your family? It doesn't and it shouldn't.

Yes the consequences are worse for a poor person, but that's like saying that consequences of murder are worse for a poor person - if they go to prison then their family is now at risk because maybe they were the only money making person in the family. Rich person's family is probably going to be fine. But does that mean that poor people should be punished less for murder? Of course this is hyperbole now, but I think the same principle applies.

But why should the poor be punished more than the rich? If you do that too much the poor put on yellow vests and start breaking things. It’s kind of a French tradition. At least this time they aren’t building guillotines.

>>But why should the poor be punished more than the rich?

I just disagree with this sentence, vehemently. If someone is driving a car in a dangerous manner, they should lose the right to drive regardless of how much they need it, and definitely regardless of how rich/poor they are. What's the appropriate punishment for a poor person in your opinion?

Like, I genuinely don't understand? A "rich" person should lose their licence for 12 months, but a poor person should only get away with a warning because they need a car to make money?

So if the very next day they get behind the wheel and kill someone, the court process will look like this

"Dear Honour, the accused was stopped for dangerous driving yesterday"

"ok, why were they still driving today then?"

"They are poor, so they were allowed to keep the licence"

Like, that's literal insanity. Driving is a right, not a privilege. If getting too many points means you can't get to your job and lose said job - I'm really sorry, but that's tough shit. I'd rather they didn't have a job than continue driving and be a danger to others.

Nobody is arguing that a poor person should be punished less severely for breaking the law.

Instead, the point I am trying to get across is how it feels to be a poor person that receives a more painful punishment relative to a privileged class and the kind of sentiment that would breed among the poorer class.

I am not French so I will not presume to know what the purpose of the Yellow Vest movement really is but it sounds to me like there are economically disadvantaged classes that are tired of being left out in the cold.

This is a matter of empathy, not lawmaking.

Nice idea in theory, but the fines aren't proportional to your income and in a lot of places people will point out the speed cameras are in a poor area - so whilst theoretically a rich person speeding would be fined too, they'll just never go past the camera.

They are in some countries, which I linked an article about.

That's not how regressive penalties work. Incentives are only equal if the penalty amount is based on ability to pay.

Sweden and Finland have fines based on the annual income.[0]

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454

In Switzerland as well but only for highway with more then 25 Km/h over. [1]

[1] https://rp-online.de/panorama/ausland/raser-drohen-782000-eu...

You're probably thinking Switzerland, not Sweden. I've been living in Sweden for quite a while, never heard of fines based on income levels.

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/auto/rekord-bussgeld-euro-strafe...

You are correct on Finland, you are wrong on Sweden. In fact, Sweden is not even mentioned in your source so not sure where you got it from.

Memory, which might have been failing me as well... The source was just an example

Imagine if they caught Jeff Bezos. They could probably fund their entire police force for several years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-m...

The nokia boss had to pay 116 000 EUR in 2002 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

This is why you get a chauffeur.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Meanwhile, most of Scandinavia determines speeding fines based on income.

Finland does. Sweden and Denmark do not. Norway I don't know, but suspect not.

Source: I live in Sweden and recently got caught by a speed camera in Denmark.

Norway does not, either. We do issue fines for drunk driving based on your income, though.

It's not true. They take from everyone, not just the poor.

In the Bay Area (San Francisco etc.), it's not necessarily "from the poor", but I've been punished in excess of $500 for not coming to a complete stop at a red light (only having slowed down). It's like this everywhere - it's a tool for extortion. And it's terrible.

Usually you can just ignore those tickets. They can't prove you got the ticket, nor can they prove you were driving. And if they send it to a collection agency, you can demand proof of the debt and they will usually just give up.

But yeah, they're installed by 3rd parties and are usually just there to make money.

California stops are very dangerous to pedestrians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com