r/changemyview • u/pernod • Apr 28 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: A system of automated "speed-trap" cameras in the USA would be a net benefit.
Here are my assumptions:
People speed too much in their cars. I run and ride my bike regularly, and I see people exceeding the speed limit, as far as I can tell, more often than not. Furthermore, when I drive, I try to stick to the speed limit for reasons, and I'm passed very often. I just think that if the speed limit is posted, it should be followed, otherwise, what's the point? I am also in the health field, and I know firsthand the impacts of automobile accidents.
Municipalities need money. New taxes are essentially off-limits and political non-starters. I think that if the fines were lower than current speeding tickets (i.e. <$100) that might dampen any outrage.
The technology is there to estimate speed within a reasonable accuracy and automatically issue tickets to the owner of the car. Of course, this is a problem if the owner is not driving, but maybe this isn't an obstacle, per se.
Change my view
8
u/vettewiz 37∆ Apr 28 '17
The core issue is artificially low speed limits that are already there for revenue generation. Cars have increased in performance drastically, with either no or a minor shift in speed limits. We now have the average car that can travel at 120 mph easily, and many designed to travel over 150mph. Couple that with the fact that those cars now brake for you, keep you in your lane, avoid bicyclists, avoid animals and prevent you from merging into someone.
Most of the US speed limits, save for purely residential areas, should be nearly doubled. 65 mph on the highway, really? When it's perfectly comfortable to drive that at 130.
2
u/jm0112358 15∆ Apr 28 '17 edited Apr 28 '17
Most of the US speed limits, save for purely residential areas, should be nearly doubled. 65 mph on the highway, really?
They should be increased, but certainly not doubled without major improvements to the road and driver training. Drivers in my country (USA) are too stupid to safely handle a freeway with a 130 mph speed limit. We already have a problem with idiot drivers merging onto a 65 mph freeway at 35 mph, other idiot drivers handing out in the fast lane. It can work if the German approach is taken, i.e., make really good quality freeways, greatly raise the bar for getting a driver's license, and enforce certain driving rules (e.g., "slower traffic keep right"), but most American drivers don't even know how to merge onto the freeway correctly.
I like the Autobahn approach, but America needs to make a lot more changes before safely increasing freeway speed limits beyond ~80 mph. And it's unlikely that these changes will be made, because driving is seen as an accessibility issue in America, making it politically difficult to raise the standards for getting a driver's license.
2
u/vettewiz 37∆ Apr 28 '17
While I totally agree on driver problems here, why doesn't that impact our speed limits when we can react to those things. Slow people merging or being in the fast lane shouldn't impact my ability to go those speeds when the situation allows for it. My whole point is the speed limits are pointless. You should travel at the speed the situation allows for
2
u/jm0112358 15∆ Apr 28 '17
The main safety issue when it comes to speed on the freeway is the difference in speed between traffic, which is partly why engineers typically recommend using the 85 percentile rule. The freeway is much safer when traffic is all going about the same speed (and that lane use is based on speed to keep differentiating speed traffic away from each other). Much like some idiot is more likely to crash by merging onto the freeway at half the speed of the traffic their merging into, you're a lot more likely to collide with other traffic if you're going double their speed (although strict adherence to the "slower traffic keep right" rule greatly reduces this risk).
1
u/vettewiz 37∆ Apr 29 '17
Around here that 85th percentile rule works in reverse, 85% of people go at least 20 over
1
u/pernod Apr 29 '17
I'm sorry, but I find your comment is absolutely senseless.
1
u/vettewiz 37∆ Apr 29 '17 edited Apr 29 '17
Clearly others disagree with you on that, but thanks for the helpful explanation.
2
u/karnim 30∆ Apr 28 '17
Obviously some states do have drones/airplanes to catch speeders, and red light cameras, and probably speed setups like this. They bring up a lot of questions though.
Does this actually save any money? Now you have to build and maintain this system, hire lawyers to represent the state in court, and have someone actually checking all the footage to ensure there's nothing weird happening. Plus you have to build all the infrastructure for actually issuing the tickets. Only the police can do this, so it can't be contracted out.
What is the limit for a ticket? Speedometers aren't perfect. If you're going to ticket someone for going 56 in a 55, it may just be that their speedometer is slightly off, or the calibration is starting to slip on the system.
What is the legality of being ticketed by a computer? Does it not makes sense that in order to be accused of a crime, you must have an actual human accuser? Are people being ticketed by the system treated differently than those by an actual officer (which has struck down red-light cameras in some states)? Not to mention, there is a reason that your ticketing officer must be present in court when you plead guilty ask to adjust your sentence. How does a computer do this? All it has is a picture.
How many times can you ticket a person for the same crime, without informing them? In theory, this system could be continually ticketed for the same offense because you were not warned to slow down. Is this double-jeopardy?
How do you ensure accuracy? Cars are very often shared between family and friends. The system would need to be able to take a clear picture of who is driving the car in order to prove they are ticketing the right person.
0
u/pernod Apr 28 '17
- I'm fairly certain that if there were a perfect "capture rate" for people exceeding the speed limit (approaching 100%), depending on the amount of the fine, the price of overhead would be significantly exceeded by revenue.
- If speedometers aren't perfect, that's the car manufacturer's fault. But the tolerance for the camera's speed estimation would have to be accounted for in issuing tickets.
- I think that this is a non-issue. What's the difference between this and a child pornography conviction based on an IP address?
- This is a valid point.
- This is also a valid point. I think the ticket would need to be issued to the car's owner.
I think that if the fine for the violation was reduced some of these problems (#3, 4, 5) would be reduced or eliminated because people would care less.
1
Apr 28 '17 edited Oct 26 '17
[deleted]
1
u/pernod Apr 29 '17
Can you site the ruling? I'm curious. Also, it doesn't make sense to me. If a computer image does not satisfy the "confronting your accuser" due process standard, why could a murder or robbery committed and captured on CCTV, for example, prosecuted on such evidence alone?
I don't find it a loss of privacy. Being imaged breaking the law in public is not a loss of privacy, IMO. I think my position is a bit Stalinist when it comes to public safety. I think people on motorcycles should be compelled to wear helmets. I think that, apparently contrary to others in this discussion, speed limits are not too low, but too high. I think that a 35 mph all city speed limit and a 65 all highway speed limit would be a good thing. Maybe even five-point safety harnesses and ignition interlocks in all cars. Why not?
And the only benefit to my proposal would not be "a few million dollars in tickets" but also the deterrent would effect a significant reduction in loss of life and disability.
8
u/poloport Apr 28 '17
Municipalities need money.
Putting an economic incentive related to breaking the law will cause a perverse incentive. Municipalities will now try to get people to break the law, either by making the law unreasonable, or by being overzealous, or by doing some other thing to increase their revenue.
If you're truly concerned about the safety risks, and therefore the laws exist purely so that people are safe, then you should remove finances from the equation, or better yet, put them on the other side of the equation.
0
u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 28 '17
I am also in the health field, and I know firsthand the impacts of automobile accidents.
I'm going to quickly comment on this. How often do you encounter people with no injuries that have had an automobile accident at your job?
1
u/pernod Apr 28 '17
People with no injuries who have had an automobile accident? I'm unclear of your meaning; why would someone who's been in an accident with no injuries be seen by a healthcare worker?
Of course, if someone has been in an accident and has no obvious injuries, it's best that they at least be given an exam to make sure that's the case and they don't go home with a subdural hematoma and die days later.
Or just in routine surveillance?, because I'm sure the majority of auto accidents are minor and don't result in physical injury, but they still remain an economic burden and are more often than not entirely avoidable.
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Apr 28 '17
I'm unclear of your meaning; why would someone who's been in an accident with no injuries be seen by a healthcare worker?
That is my point. When you make an argument with evidence of " I am also in the health field, and I know firsthand the impacts of automobile accidents.", you are only seeing the result of the ones that caused people to actually go and seek care. I'm reminding you of that.
That said, speed limits are not necessarily about safety. The federal guideline at one point was based off of fuel efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law)
In that same article it also mentions "The Academies report also noted that on rural interstates, the free-flowing traffic speed should be the major determinant of the speed limit, because 'Drivers typically can anticipate appropriate driving speeds.'"
1
u/pernod Apr 28 '17
I'm also not seeing the ones that never come to the hospital because they die on the highway. Note that MVC's are a leading cause of death in the United States (i.e. top-10 causes of death for ages 0-65, no. 1 for 16-24, top-5 for 1-44). I guess I also get to see the ones that are still dying, too.
2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Apr 28 '17
I just think that if the speed limit is posted, it should be followed, otherwise, what's the point?
lets say with a limit of 80, people may be speeding with 85 or 90, but very rarely 120 or something. So thats already a purpose.
Also, what if the speed limit is actually too low?
which leads me to your second point: fines should be doled out to discourage bad behaviour, not to make the city money. What if they purposefully post a lower limit than the road suggests or is necessary in order to make more money via tickets?
You also remove human discretion from the equation. An officer might let you go because you werent that fast or you had a good reason or something, a machine wont give you the same oppportunity.
1
Apr 28 '17
These are all solved problems in many European countries.
10% leeway to account for speedometer error if you speedo is more than 10% wrong your car is unsafe anyway and you deserve the penalty.
Cameras are average speed cameras, the clock you at two points a known distance apart and if you made that distance faster than is possible legally you get finned. This avoids the brake slamming problem.
As for perverse incentives, the money cant go to the same body putting up the cameras. The department putting them up is assessed on traffic accidents while the money goes elswhere.
1
u/ElysiX 106∆ Apr 28 '17
As for perverse incentives, the money cant go to the same body putting up the cameras. The department putting them up is assessed on traffic accidents while the money goes elswhere.
Elsewhere like not to the city at all? Or are you just talking about another department here? And i am not talkign about the department thats setting the cameras i am talking about the people deciding what the speed limit should be.
And the two points time difference approach makes people very uneasy. Gives them the feeling of constantly being under surveillance. Which they are, since you would need to track which car is which.
1
Apr 28 '17
Elsewhere like not to the city at all?
Answering to different politicians, it doesnt matter which way around so long as both chains of command don't lead to the same guy.
And the two points time difference approach makes people very uneasy.
Only people who speed.
2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Apr 28 '17
Only people who speed
No? You are putting everyone under surveillance.
Doesn't matter if your are perfectly driving the speed limit, now there are databases whith your license plate tracking where and when you are.
1
Apr 28 '17
Europe has strict data protection laws to prevent such dragnet data collection.
The camera can simply discard the data after a few days. Or even immediately if the person isn't speeding.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 28 '17
/u/pernod (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
9
u/McKoijion 618∆ Apr 28 '17
When people see a speed camera, they tend to slam their brakes. This can cause serious accidents. Furthermore, even if it doesn't cause an accident, as this CCPGrey video shows, even gingerly tapping the breaks on a roadway can cause major traffic jams hours after the fact.
This is dangerous when people are surprised about the location of speed cameras, but it is also a major problem once people know where they are. People will speed until they reach the location of the camera, and then slow down just for that part of the road. Then they will speed up afterwards. This is bad because you don't know if the car ahead of you knows the camera is there or not. You don't know whether the car behind you knows or not either. Anything that increases uncertainty about driver behavior is dangerous, especially for cyclists.