Speed cameras coming to America?

[gloomyDAY]

I haven't seen any here in SoCal, but I suspect they could be on the way.

Luckily, I usually drive the speed limit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110327/ap_on_re_us/us_speed_camera_spat

I don't really like the idea. Just like red-light cameras were supposed to revolutionize traffic safety, and that never materialized. Now cities all over the country are covering costs to 3rd party contractors, and are actually going into the red because a lot of people do NOT pay their tickets.

Novel idea, but no thanks.

[Alexamateo]

gloomy, the reason cities are losing money on red light cameras is that drivers change their behavior and actually stop running lights. Ticket revenue is reduced to below levels needed to cover overhead. Some people may not pay their tickets but when a particular tag comes up for renewal, somebody will eventually have to pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

[Bob Riebe]

They were declared unconstitutional in Minn. and all the tickets were voided.

[gloomyDAY]

gloomy, the reason cities are losing money on red light cameras is that drivers change their behavior and actually stop running lights. Ticket revenue is reduced to below levels needed to cover overhead. Some people may not pay their tickets but when a particular tag comes up for renewal, somebody will eventually have to pay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/Not here. Cities in L.A. County were losing revenue because 2/3 of red-light runners didn't pay their tickets. Maintaining those cameras is mighty expensive too, and can be a money sucker if the city is contractually obligated to pay the 3rd party.

Edit: One more thing I wanted to add. Red-light cameras cause collisions as specified in your link. Just FYI.


They were declared unconstitutional in Minn. and all the tickets were voided.Damn straight. This is one of many reasons I love living in America. Got a problem? Then say something and get it fixed! I just don't want to be overrun by these cameras as they are in Britain.

[Hondo]

Back in the '70s, a small town or two between Houston and Galveston tried the speed camera thing. The experiment ended when there was enough evidence to prove that speeders could avoid the cameras, but the cameras couldn't avoid .22 and other small arms fire.

[Mark]

The issue in the UK was that the 'camera partnership' usually the police and local council were allowed to keep the money from cameras, which meant they were placed where drivers were most likely to exceed the limit, but that is most likely to be the place where exceeding the limit was safest!

[Eki]

In Finland, the camera's first measured the speed just before the camera, so drivers tended to slow down before where they knew was a camera. Now they are testing cameras that measure average speed between two cameras.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I saw a flash whilst on the motorway the other night. If I get a fine for going 80mph on an empty motorway at 11.30pm I will be seriously p155ed off.

[MrJan]

I saw a flash whilst on the motorway the other night. If I get a fine for going 80mph on a motorway at 11.30pm I will be seriously p155ed off.

Rare for gatsos to be on motorways these days (I remember when cameras first came in the M5 had a stretch near Avonmouth that was covered in the buggers), more likely it was someone pricking about with a snapshot camera to make you think you'd been nicked.

[Mark]

I saw a flash whilst on the motorway the other night. If I get a fine for going 80mph on an empty motorway at 11.30pm I will be seriously p155ed off.

As said, they are rare on motorways, more likely car lights reflected in a window.

[GridGirl]

There are variable speed cameras on the M42, M6 and M1 now though. I don't know anyone that has been given a ticket for speeding through a variable speed limit on the motorway but only people that have been given tickets for exceeding a temporary 50mph limit through roadworks. I do wish that whoever maintains the temprary cameras would take them down if they are not in use. I always seems to be driving behind the person who can't read the not in use sign and then slams on the brakes at the last minute as they are not quite sure what speed they should be driving at.

[Mark]

Yep, there's fixed variable speed cameras, and SPECS (average speed) cameras are common in roadworks. Nobody seems to know what happens with the variable speed cameras when they are switched off, they certainly don't rigidly enforce 70mph, some say they are set to 85mph, or that they are off completely, all we know is that...

[schmenke]

They were declared unconstitutional in Minn...

Why?

[Bob Riebe]

Why?

They are against the law as written in the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.

You are not guilty till proven innocent.

While Minn. is becoming a liberal political hole to a great degree, the Minn. Supreme Court still takes laws at face value, at about the same time they told Gov. Pawlenty that he could call his tax a fee if he wanted to but that tax was still illegal also and was voided.

[Eki]

They are against the law as written in the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.

You are not guilty till proven innocent.

While Minn. is becoming a liberal political hole to a great degree, the Minn. Supreme Court still takes laws at face value, at about the same time they told Gov. Pawlenty that he could call his tax a fee if he wanted to but that tax was still illegal also and was voided.
Don't the cameras prove people to be either innocent or guilty for speeding? The innocent ones won't end up in photographs, just the guilty ones.

[Bob Riebe]

Don't the cameras prove people to be either innocent or guilty for speeding? The innocent ones won't end up in photographs, just the guilty ones.
The ticket is sent to the owner of the car, regardless of who is driving.

[schmenke]

Most provinces in Canada have had speed radar for several years now.
Yes, the ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for payment, however, no points are added to his driving record as it’s impossible to determine if he was driving at the time.

If the owner feels that he is innocent, he can always contest in court and try to have the ticket rescinded.

Bottom line, don't lend your vehicle to a lead-foot.

[Eki]

The ticket is sent to the owner of the car, regardless of who is driving.
At least they have the right to complain if the driver in the photo is not them.

[MrJan]

The ticket is sent to the owner of the car, regardless of who is driving.

Which actually allows you to get away with speeding more. In the UK you usually get 3 points for speeding (6 if it's really over the top and a straight ban if it's stupid speeds) once you get 12 then you get a ban (although the points do expire after a certain amount of time). Therefore it's not uncommon for people on 9 points to ask relatives and friends to take the hit on their behalf by saying "it was me what dun it". I know of a few people that have done this to keep their license.

Incidentally I have not (yet) been caught for speeding, so the accuracy of some of that may be a bit out as I've never had the privilege of reading the "you were caught speeding" letter.

[Mark]

At least they have the right to complain if the driver in the photo is not them.

It revolves around a point of law. The photograph is indeed sent to the registered keeper of the car regardless of who is driving. They are then required to reply stating who was driving the car at the time of the alleged infringement. I'm sure what Bob is referring to is that under law you have the right not to incriminate yourself, but by requiring the owner to fill in the form you are removing their right to silence.

Now, being stopped in person is an entirely different matter as the officer can clearly see who is driving the car.

[Mark]

Which actually allows you to get away with speeding more. In the UK you usually get 3 points for speeding (6 if it's really over the top and a straight ban if it's stupid speeds) once you get 12 then you get a ban (although the points do expire after a certain amount of time). Therefore it's not uncommon for people on 9 points to ask relatives and friends to take the hit on their behalf by saying "it was me what dun it". I know of a few people that have done this to keep their license.

Incidentally I have not (yet) been caught for speeding, so the accuracy of some of that may be a bit out as I've never had the privilege of reading the "you were caught speeding" letter.

Yes, but it's not like the police aren't wise to this practice and if find out they come down on your like a tonne of bricks to make an example.

[Dave B]

In the UK the majority of newer cameras are front facing so unless you have a twin it's pretty obvious who was driving.

[Eki]

It revolves around a point of law. The photograph is indeed sent to the registered keeper of the car regardless of who is driving. They are then required to reply stating who was driving the car at the time of the alleged infringement. I'm sure what Bob is referring to is that under law you have the right not to incriminate yourself, but by requiring the owner to fill in the form you are removing their right to silence.

Now, being stopped in person is an entirely different matter as the officer can clearly see who is driving the car.
But you then often have to show your driver's license and therefore incriminate yourself. There's no chance you can stay anonymous. The only difference I see is that the process using cameras is more automated than the process using officers.

[Dave B]

The only problem I have with speed cameras is if they're hidden - as is the case on the A2 just past Bexleyheath going into London, for example. The whole point is that they're a deterrent, to stop you speeding in the first place.

As the then Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman said when he appeared on Top Gear, "we paint them bright yellow, we put up signs, we publish maps of them on the internet. If you're getting caught, whose fault is that?"

[GridGirl]

There is a dual carrieage way that I used to travel on to work and on an almost daily basis the cameras would quite often flash for someone speeding on the other side of the road due to the staggering of the cameras on each side. I've often wondered whether you could be driving within the speed limit and still get caught due to someone else speeding on the other side of the road. :s

[Mark]

There is a dual carrieage way that I used to travel on to work and on an almost daily basis the cameras would quite often flash for someone speeding on the other side of the road due to the staggering of the cameras on each side. I've often wondered whether you could be driving within the speed limit and still get caught due to someone else speeding on the other side of the road. :s

Well you could always ask for the photographic evidence if you felt the prosecution was unfounded.

[Dave B]

There is a dual carrieage way that I used to travel on to work and on an almost daily basis the cameras would quite often flash for someone speeding on the other side of the road due to the staggering of the cameras on each side. I've often wondered whether you could be driving within the speed limit and still get caught due to someone else speeding on the other side of the road. :s
<notalawyer> I believe that for a NIP to be successful it has to be backed up by the position of your car relative to the white markings on the road. </notalawyer>

[Bob Riebe]

But you then often have to show your driver's license and therefore incriminate yourself. There's no chance you can stay anonymous. The only difference I see is that the process using cameras is more automated than the process using officers.
No if some one driving my car gets a speeding ticket I may never find out about as I am not involved in any way.

[Eki]

No if some one driving my car gets a speeding ticket I may never find out about as I am not involved in any way.
Wouldn't you like to know if someone driving your car gets a speeding ticket? I know I'd like to know what's done with my car. If you're not involved in any way, it would mean your car is stolen. Wouldn't you like to know who stole your car?

[Garry Walker]

The only problem I have with speed cameras is if they're hidden - as is the case on the A2 just past Bexleyheath going into London, for example. The whole point is that they're a deterrent, to stop you speeding in the first place.
I think they actually should be hidden. Just put up a sign that within the next 20 miles there are 3 cameras up and it will discipline people. Put a sign that the camera is on that spot and people will speed once past it without any worries.

[Rollo]

I think they actually should be hidden. Just put up a sign that within the next 20 miles there are 3 cameras up and it will discipline people. Put a sign that the camera is on that spot and people will speed once past it without any worries.

I agree with this exactly.

On the roads in New South Wales, the law requires that fixed speed cameras have three warning posted before you get to them. Especially on motorways everyone merrily speeds along doing 110km/h and then all of these red lights come on as people slow down to 90km/h just for the cameras. Within half a click, everyone is back up to 110km/h again.

But in Victoria...
The only requirement is that the roads which go into the state have signs saying "Speed Cameras Used Throughout Victoria". Everyone entering Victoria very carefully makes sure that they don't nudge the speed limits at all; people start doing 95 in 100 zones.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Most provinces in Canada have had speed radar for several years now.
Yes, the ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle who is responsible for payment, however, no points are added to his driving record as it’s impossible to determine if he was driving at the time.

If the owner feels that he is innocent, he can always contest in court and try to have the ticket rescinded.

Bottom line, don't lend your vehicle to a lead-foot.
Ah yes, that argument.

Here is a clue Schmenke. Bob Rae brought them in when the NDP was in power, and it was/is a cash grab. Ours were mobile with vans. I heard your argument over and over..and the next provincial election, one of the main reason Mike Harris won his majority was his first plank and that was to deep six the cameras. He was as good as his word. No one has asked for them back, not even "Premier Dad".

They are hated, and they are not right. You cant give a ticket to someone who you cant prove is driving, and cars don't get tickets, people do. The idea of innocent until proven guilty goes out the window. Then you add in the factor you cant even ticket anyone for speeding, so you just give a ticket to a car owner. Well, this is an offense versus a driver, and should be assigned as such. It isn't like a parking ticket, because in the case of a parking ticket, the car is illegally parked, there is no doubt who the car is and the owner has left it there. In the case of a camera, no one is 100% sure which car is the speeding car, and no one can deterimine the driver.

This technology is a glorified tax grab, and a gutless way of doing it. Shooting the politician who thinks this and the red light cameras is too good for them.

Red light cameras to me are the WORST, since many of the manufacturers of them in the US would run and operate them and then insist the yellow light duration on the lights would be cut in half to "Generate more Revenue". Well wait a minute, this is supposed to be about safety. Nothing safe about everyone speeding or running lights and no cop ever cars to chase them down because they can send a letter later.....

Just lazy and gutless ways of raising money for municipalities...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

This technology is a glorified tax grab, and a gutless way of doing it. Shooting the politician who thinks this and the red light cameras is too good for them.

.

Ah yes. That argument.

In the UK speed cameras generate less income than one wealthy mans income tax.

[Mark]

Ah yes, that argument. But it isn't actually central government that sought to promote them. It was the Speed Camera Parnerships, which sought to maintain their own existence through camera revenues. Which directly lead to unnecessary speed limit reductions and proliferation of cameras.

[Bob Riebe]

Wouldn't you like to know if someone driving your car gets a speeding ticket? I know I'd like to know what's done with my car. If you're not involved in any way, it would mean your car is stolen. Wouldn't you like to know who stole your car?
The way a person drives my car, and it being stolen are not even remotely related, good grief.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ah yes. That argument.

In the UK speed cameras generate less income than one wealthy mans income tax.

Well that is typical, and I don't believe for a second that all the speed cameras in the UK are not making a pretty nice sum. Sorry, I know you Brits drive like angels when you know you are on camera and like bandits away from em, but it doesn't change the motives of what put them out there in the first place.

Like their cousin, the Red Light Camera, the North American experience has shown that the minute the actual number of infractions drop, the companies that operate them on behalf of the jurisdictions are often working with the state to get the speed limit changed, or in the case of the Red Light Camera, the duration of the caution yellow light shortened to make more people fall out of compliance. IT is all about the money my friend....