Sweden’s 'speed camera lottery' hit a red light years ago (2021)

"It's very plainly about control more than human life."

You're asserting that a system that does not exist, and would save human lives if it did exist, could not exist for that provable, measurable reason, but instead can only exist for the paranoid reason you've asserted with no evidence. Do you see the flaw in that logic?

The right to face your accuser is only in criminal court, which is why the red light cameras in places like Chicago issue only civil fines.

We had loads of red light cameras where I am, and while there are still some around the vast majority were removed because they caused drivers who otherwise would have safely blown a yellow to jam on the brakes, much to the chagrin of the person behind them who suddenly had less braking distance.

And yeah, people should leave more room, but they don't. So you get enforcement camera-induced accidents, thus defeating the purpose.

To me, that perspective is sick and psychopathic.

There are a thousand ways to get kicks in life without directly endangering the lives of other human beings. Some people like skydiving and rock climbing. I like to do lots of drugs and have adventurous sex. But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.

Then do it on a racetrack. Not when other peoples lives are at risk.

Fatal car accidents happen all the time. They're not rare.

Sure, we can make a list of thorny questions for literally any proposed change to any law or system. Ah, the wonders of rhetoric! But I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome, as most problems are overcome for most basic functions of civilization.

- Does not matter. If my someone driving my car fails to pay the toll, the state sends me the letter. If I want to dispute it, I can take it to court.

- More financial penalties.

- Can't enforce what isn't enforceable.

- See above

- Yes

- Yes

- They are exempt.

- They can explain that in court.

- The state makes a lot of money, then.

- That would be a crime.

- Fine the fly.

- No. Save the taxpayer dollars.

- No. But that's true with anything that's government-related.

These are already existing problems. Are there no speed cameras and red light cameras in the US?

In Sydney there is now a system that will track drivers attention and if you get caught looking at your phone while driving you get a fine.

> - Is the driver recognizable and is the owner?

Does it matter? Either the owner authorized the unsafe driver and can pay the fine or the car was stolen and the fine should be waived.

> - What is the penalty for non-payment?

The same as it is now for unpaid speeding tickets.

> - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?

Then regular police cars that drive near them should notice this, pull them over and fine them.

> - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?

That seems like a weird thing for a state to do.

> - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

Yes

> - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?

Probably not.

> - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?

Then you issue a ticket and they don't pay it. See New York and UN parking tickets for an example.

> - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?

Then they both get tickets.

> - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph? > - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies? > - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?

These questions all seem to think this is new, unreliable technology. Photo radar has existed and been used for decades.

> - Will humans audit the system?

Probably.

> - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?

Do you trust the humans issuing speeding tickets now?

Maybe you're right, maybe speed cameras aren't the solution. Maybe we should address it from the other direction — the cars themselves. Simply stop producing cars that can go faster than the legal limit.

Genuinely curious, are you not familiar with the existing concept of a speed camera? There are answers to all of these questions from jurisdictions near you I'm sure, if not the very one you're in or one you've driven in.

Consider that bicyclists and pedestrians cannot match higher speeds. Some limits are designed to save their lives.

Moving with the traffic is one factor. Another factor is the speed that the roads are designed to handle. While the former is probably the most significant factor when it comes to safety, there is little doubt in my mind that traffic fatalities would go down if everyone moved with the traffic at the speed limit.

As for people adapting their speeds based upon what's safe and what's not, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The joke around here is that people forget how to drive during the first snowfall. Not forget how to drive in the snow. Forget how to drive altogether. Why? Because people aren't adapting their speed. Likewise, people often drive at high speeds on winding roads. People often drive with sole consideration to the road, without any consideration to what surrounds it (e.g. schools, hospitals, pedestrians, cyclists, lane ways, entrances to parking lots, etc.).

Speed limits exist for a reason. Yes, sometimes bad decisions are made by stupid people when creating those speed limits. On the other hand, those stupid people probably know more about traffic safety than someone who thinks they have the right to endanger people by driving over the speed limit.

Obviously we need a more robust system. The fact that the current system is lacking does not mean that all possible systems would be. It means the very opposite - the current methods have ample room for improvement.

In the UK, my satnav specifically tells me when I'm approaching a speed camera. I'm not sure why that's legal.

Aren't you warned in the US well before the camera's location?

In Sydney lots of people complain about the speed cameras but except for the mobile cameras, there are huge honking signs telling you there is a camera ahead. Most people will start to slow down well before the camera. On our highways we also have average speed cameras, 2 cameras will take a shot and if your average was too high, you get fined. But these are also well signed.

Yet people still get caught all the time. I'd have more sympathy for the people getting caught except that they are literally given a cheat sheet on the road for when to slow down and not get caught.

I don't recall who it is that said that, but it's still a win. People will start driving slower and more cautiously some time before the cameras ( not just in front of it, because they're probably not the only ones on the road and the drivers in front of them will need to do the same), in both directions, so you end up with tons of drivers driving more cautiously for a few km. Especially if you put the cameras in dangerous sections of the road, you can have a huge reduction in road incidents.

Ticket the owner.

I see people weaving in and out of lanes on a regular basis when I drive in California, usually at a much higher speed than other cars. Where do you drive that you don't often see dangerous driving?

You’ve never seen someone weaving in and out of traffic, cutting across 3 lanes at a time, and nearly clipping cars each time the change lanes?

Or you’ve never seen someone driving 30 miles an hour faster than the people in the lane next to them?

It wasn’t every day or every week, but I’ve seen it many times commuting into Atlanta over the years.

But sure if you removed speed limits most people would continue driving at a safe speed. The problem is small minority who choose to go 30 over. You can still make that illegal and prosecute them under reckless driving laws. But then you’re just adding even more subjectivity to traffic enforcement.

If you’re on a road without much traffic, what feels safe is subjective. It depends on what you’re used to and the car you’re driving.

Perhaps where you drive is safer than where I do. I see dangerous driving multiple times a year and see recent accidents weekly (cars and cops on the side of the road).

According to the NTSB:

> "On the highways 100 people (are killed) a day," he said. "Every two days we are killing the equivalent of a Boeing 737 crashing. [0]

Obviously, not all directly a result of “insanely dangerous” driving (including the primary topic of that article). But, my definition would include driving that results in fatal accidents.

[0] https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_28168226adfec28da29cec92e7...

Drivers are one of the top killers of young people and a very significant cause of lost years of life, and speed is a factor in IIRC 73% of collisions. People do not generally drive at a safe speed in the US, rather they drive at a speed that seems safe because they've done it a bunch of times - the same kind of normalization of deviance as launching your space shuttle because it never burned through both O-rings the last 20 times.

This is purely anecdotal and goes against all data. A simple search for "Are speed limits effective" will show you tons of past experiments. Safe speed limits, when enforced, are highly effective in reducing accidents and fatalities.

I find that enforced speeding fines (which doesn't seem to happen in the US) causes drivers to drive at different speeds, whether an individual at that speed is safe or not. Inconsistent driving speeds is a lot more difficult to drive in.

If I had a vote (which I don't) I'd say increase all the limits by 10 mph (to reflect what people are doing now) but then also fine people that are speeding (like +2mph).

Agreed! I was describing cars that are exceeding the speed of other cars on a fairly busy freeway and not using turn signals while rapidly changing lanes. Something I have seen a lot in California specifically.

I've done plenty of multi-state drives on mostly-empty highways with cruise control set at 90mph. And I think most people would agree that speed limits on those roads should be raised.

> while gliding across lanes with no blinker

Might as well read the rest of the description they provided.

Washington State (and probably other states are similar) has a law often summarized as: 'Keep Right - Except to Pass'.

Going SLOW in the left lane(s), particularly on the often 4+ wide lane Interstate Freeways near the urban core(s), is (I would love a real study on this) more dangerous than a driver going a little faster the further left they go. Though the most dangerous, and disruptive, are full-interrupts from enforcement officers to pull someone over and issue a ticket; which also causes a road hazard and gawker block.

I would much rather those public servants focused on even other traffic laws: improperly secured loads, failure to keep right to allow others to pass. Even more preferentially focused on non-traffic crimes: theft, various threats / assaults, etc.

Australian drivers are the some of the worst, angriest and most inconsiderate in the world in my experience. Don't believe me get on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, you're guaranteed to see countless people tailgating with less than a meter distance to the car in front at 120+ kmh, snaking between lanes, abusing each other etc etc. Urban speed limits are too high and planners seem to have zero consideration for the safety of people on foot, bike and alternative transport. Hooning is rampant. I could go on. Speed cameras are woefully inadequate to fix any of it.

I've been living in the US for 4 years now (from Australia) and I find driving in the US, with their inconsistent-to-nonexistent speeding fines have caused driving to be a real pain - everyone drives at different speeds, mostly 10+ mph over.

Went to Australia last month - driving was so nice (yes, also to the Gold Coast). Everyone does the same speed (more or less); you can see cars in your mirrors and know they're going to be roughly in the same spot a second or two later when changing lanes :) :)

It does appear oppressive to someone who is used to +10% wiggle room on the speed limits, but I think a key point of confusion here is that recommended speed and speed limit are two separate concepts, but are conflated into simply the speed limit, and the recommended speed is rarely advertised.

And, that hard 3km/h over the speed limit standard also applies in places that have more lenient enforcement, but the driver never knows exactly where the limit is because it is based on the cop's discretion. For example, on most US highways, if the speed limit is 65, you can do 75 without getting a second look from a cop. But if they clock you at 76, you're getting pulled over.

This is bizarre. In many European countries you absolutely have the right to challenge any and all evidence against you if you decide to contest the penalty. In such case you go to court to make your case.

The machine captures evidence of your offense, but is not your accuser, that would be the state, who has to prove that the evidence is sound.

Your theory would make CCTV recordings inadmissible against burgalars.

Besides, that limitation is about criminal, not civil, matters.

But that's an enormous implementation problem. You can't fault the good idea ( automates speed/basic rule like not going through red lights enforcement) for that. Fault the idiots who thought it's a good idea to outsource, with a profit motive at that, such an essential service. What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals?

Many states, where speed cameras are illegal, disagree.

Speed limits are generally too low.. this is the problem.