Why the hate for speed cameras? I love speed cameras because they make the roads safer for everyone. (And yes, once in a while I get a ticket as well, which is always a good reminder to drive safely.)
As such, they're now bright yellow.
* Clearly marked, by law.
* Placed for safety, with some clearly defined legal criteria.
* No data retention, by law.
If you get caught by that, you really need to pay more attention.
Usually next to a tree. I would prefer them to be used to prevent kids from being killed rather than to prevent some idiot from auto-darwinating himself.
Unfortunately most German(!) street cameras are placed to surprise the driver, causing nearly continuous disruption even for those who don't speed. Their destabilizing effect on traffic can be observed quite easily as people suddenly brake, make light signs to warn others, surprisingly change lanes (because of the sudden speed reduction), etc.
This is because in Germany the money goes to the local authorities.
It doesn't help that placing and maintaining them is pretty expensive (and often outsourced with profit-sharing). Local authorities and private partners have little incentive to reduce their income per device just to increase road safety.
Tricky speed cameras make people drive like robots. Some people even drive 20 below the speed limit "just because there could be a camera lurking." This problem isn't easily solved by "just sticking to the speed limit" because many cameras are set up such that they catch you when it isn't natural to drive at exact speed limit (For example shortly before a town ends, or driving up a steep hill etc.).
You're are arguing in favor of "everybody exceeds the speed limit, so we shouldn't punish it." I'm arguing in favor of "everyone should drive at the speed limit." Have you tried lately to drive 30 in a posted 30kmh zone? 50kmh in a city center? You'll be regarded as a traffic obstacle. And that's the problem.
> when it isn't natural to drive at exact speed limit (For example shortly before a town ends, or driving up a steep hill etc.).
Why isn't it "natural" to drive at the posted speed limit until you're at the end of the down? How many seconds do you gain? Is it "natural" to not be able to keep your impulse to put the pedal to the metal in check? The sign "this is the end of the town" exactly signifies that border. People not observing that might be exactly the reason why there's a speed trap - not making money, enforcing the rule.
Why is it "natural" to not observe the speed limit going up a steep hill? Especially on a steep hill it's hard to see what's happening behind the crest.
Are you arguing with "nature" or just "I don't see the use of that rule, so it doesn't apply to me"?
Is that your nature? If so, I'd prefer if you gave up driving.
The traps are when townships set speed limits well below the envelope, a speed that is unnatural.
A classic example is rural interstate highway, when the limit will drop from 75 to 55 because of “population density” even when the density is far from the highway and not traffic-interactive, then sit their local law enforcement on the highway to selectively pull over out of town / out of state “speeders”. Let’s be clear - there is no safety element to this practice.
A similar thing happens on rural roads at “town” boundaries. Classic examples in, say, Vermont, with winding mountain roads and natural speed limits. Hit an “incorporated” town that got itself a cop car, and you suddenly have a speed limit 15 - 20 mph below the rest of the road, with the first sign just around a tight corner, and the camera or cop sitting right there. The only safety difference in the road is the legal incorporation status of the town, nothing “natural” about that.
Please don’t take my word for any of this, it’s been researched.
Well, link the research, so I don't have to take your word for this.
> A classic example is rural interstate highway, when the limit will drop from 75 to 55 because of “population density” even when the density is far from the highway and not traffic-interactive, then sit their local law enforcement on the highway to selectively pull over out of town / out of state “speeders”. Let’s be clear - there is no safety element to this practice.
As always and in any case, bad actors are everywhere. But is that really such a common practice that you can just lump in all speed traps and just say "all of them are money traps"?
It had been forbidden by law few years ago. To make clear we still have speed cameras and perhaps more now but there is a process for deciding where they are and why...
If what you meant to say was 'Speed Cameras make the 30m of road that they're focused on mildly safer than it was before whilst mildly increasing the likelihood of accidents due to unexpected braking in the local area at the cost of introducing a regressive tax' I would totally agree.
Everybody and their dog knows just where the three local speed cameras are, and drive accordingly (sigh).
The average measurement in the subsea tunnel we drive to get off the island? Hard to beat, unless you want to go for less enlightened tactics like driving like a bat out of hell until you approach the next speed camera, then pause until you've waited long enough for your average speed to be under the posted speed limit before proceeding past it...
I guess it could be argued that the increased safety of highways is taken into account when the speed limit is determined - and perhaps also that the idea that safety is excel leads people who speed to exceed the posted limit by a larger margin?
Edit: also, the average speed ones perhaps unsurprisingly led more drivers to observe the limit - on average sections, 1 driver in 7000 was caught speeding; single cameras? 1 in 1680.
French stats show a large drop in road casualties linked to the installation of the first fixed speedcams (2002-2003) although actually, it started dropping when it was announced that fixed speedcams were going to be installed: http://s1.lprs1.fr/images/2014/01/20/3512371_ide-tues-routes...
It adds an element of unpredictability to the road.
This almost completely offsets any positive safety gain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3861844/
Which makes me think it's a cash-grab.
I would assume that if speed cameras decrease the average speed (which might or might not be true!), even if you have the same number of incidents, you should see a reduction in the seriousness of injuries.
There are other studies which cite this one and they're linked from the page I posted, I invite you to read them. The data is at best inconclusive that speed-traps are functional at preventing collisions and deaths.
The idea is to stop you speeding EVERYWHERE. Not just where speed cameras are. It is to penalise people who constantly break the law, and make the road dangerous for everyone.
The idea is to make money for the police department and the municipality.
https://www.leg33.com/maryland-speed-camera-fraud/
https://steemit.com/technology/@doitvoluntarily/are-traffic-...
http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/617207/Speed-cameras-safet...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410449/Undercover-p...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/red-light-camera-controve...
So they fines are a feedback-style job security enabler for the people at the department responsible for the speedcams.
There have been lots of scandals over the years and I even gave some links...
Meanwhile, if you keep the little needle on your speedometer under what the last sign said, you’ll be fine. Pretty damn hard to rig that.
If they were really really interested in making the roads safer for everyone, they would combine driving on the right with the right of way for people coming from the left iso coming from the right. Statistics show (you can measure this because there are countries where they drive left and have right of way from the right) that it lowers the death toll by almost 30%.
If anything, I think it just shows that speed limits are not enforced well enough (and I think it should start with switching to a points permit) in Belgium. I also personally find them often too high, with 70 often being allowed in urban areas outside the core parts of towns.
https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/aantal-verkeersdoden-daal...
IMO there is no question that Flemish roads (I don't know Wallonia much) are less safe than French roads.
Eurostat shows that quite well: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/RCI/#?vis=nuts1.transpor...
Speed cams would be most effective if they were hidden all over the place. (Or used to record average speed over some distance, which is a most effective way of ensuring people observe the speed limit!)
The latter, though, will get the privacy nut in me annoyed unless the authorities flush the record of you passing immediately after verifying that you drove at or under the speed limit. Speed cameras are excellent surveillance devices, after all.
I'm personally generally dubious on speed limit based policies.
For the noise complaints, enjoy the view from the A9 and A709: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Montpellier/@43.5591054,3....
I imagine it depends on the jurisdiction, but personally I don't recall ever seeing a speed camera next to a school, near a city park, or across from a row of dense apartment buildings. Instead they always seem to be in fairly irrelevant places such as along highways where you cross from one jurisdiction into another. I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with revenue though.