Yes, this is more like it. It might cost $225 to appeal but it will cost the city dearly in court time and cost. And now they have to go back and rework the law. If the change it to the driver rather than the owner the driver has to be clearly seen or you simply deny you were driving. I would suggest adopting the habit of some citizens in Japan and start driving around the city with a dust mask on.
xrunner2 and steve_host: You, and some others may find this article interesting.
Please note that this is not a court decision but it attempts to present both sides of the issue of 24/7 camera surveillance, and may serve as additional material for thoughtful discussion in this forum. Also note that this refers to camera surveillance of people, and presumably directly by law enforcement agencies and not private contractors. Even here there are important considerations and not everything is settled, or has caught up with new technology.
I think that the difference between anonymity and privacy is going to be an important one in our future in determining the correct uses of new surveillance technologies.
Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity
Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt University - School of Law
Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 72, 2002
Abstract:
Government-sponsored camera surveillance of public streets and other public places is pervasive in the United Kingdom and is increasingly popular in American urban centers, especially in the wake of 9/11. Yet legal regulation of this surveillance is virtually non-existent, in part because the Supreme Court has signalled that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This article, written for a symposium on the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and technology, contests that stance, at the same time it questions whether the traditional, "probable-cause-forever" view of Fourth Amendment protections makes sense in this technological age. Based on an analysis of the panoptic effects of government camera surveillance among them "anticipatory conformity," fear that private facts will be exposed, and possible decreased loyalty to a surveillance-driven government. This article first argues that the courts should recognize a constitutional right to anonymity in public places. Although courts have rejected constitutional challenges to public camera surveillance, they have yet to address the constitutionality of overt camera *systems*, with zoom and nightvision capacity and the storage and dissemination advantages that digitization brings. Such camera surveillance can chill speech and association, infringe on the rights to movement and repose, and undermine the general right to privacy. It also infringes the Fourth Amendment interest in avoiding unregulated government intrusions. To bolster the latter point, the article reports a study I conducted to ascertain the relative intrusiveness of overt, systematic camera surveillance in the eyes of the public. The results of a survey of almost 200 prospective jurors indicate that camera surveillance is viewed as more intrusive, to a statistically significant degree, than a number of investigative techniques the Supreme Court has found to implicate the Fourth Amendment, including roadblocks.
Building on this latter finding, the article relies heavily on the Court's roadblock jurisprudence in constructing a framework for regulating public camera surveillance. The Court's recent decision in Edmond v. Indianopolis held that a brief seizure at a roadblock set up with the primary purpose of detecting crime may not take place in the absence of individualized suspicion, a significant, difficult-to-detect crime problem (such as illegal immigration), or a crime problem that immediately threatens life and limb (such as drunk driving). The article argues that this caselaw should be read to limit camera systems to areas where a significant crime problem exists, and to require individualized suspicion for targeted camera surveillance. Based on Fourth Amendment and related constitutional jurisprudence, it also contends that the camera location decision must be made by politically accountable officials with public input, that rules governing notice of the surveillance and maintenance and disclosure of surveillance results are mandatory, and that accountability requires direct sanctions on those who violate these rules and periodic dissemination of information about surveillance practices. The article concludes with the suggestion that the traditional Fourth Amendment model requiring probable cause, backed by the exclusion remedy serves neither societal or individual interests well. Surveillance of large numbers of people cannot be justified at the probable cause level, and should not have to be. Nor is the suppression remedy an effective deterrent in this context, since at best it benefits an infinitesimally small number of people subjected to illegal surveillance, and in any event is a poor remedial fit with the types of violations that public surveillance is likely to involve. The dissonance between public surveillance and the individualized suspicion/exclusionary rule model suggests a need for rethinking both the type of justification and the manner of implementation the Fourth Amendment requires.
Keegan is an elected justice of the peace for Maricopa County. His court has jurisdiction over north Glendale, Peoria, Sun City and Surprise. Any driver contesting a freeway speed camera ticket within this jurisdiction will have the $181 fine automatically dismissed.
"It is the determination of this court that the provisions of ARS 41-1722 are unconstitutional and unenforceable within the jurisdiction of this court," Keegan concluded.
Finally, a judge with common sense who follows the Constitution," wrote CameraFraud Tucson organizer Bill Conley.
The results have been mixed at best. Even Council Bluffs police admit accidents increased at at least one of the four intersections with cameras. Davenport likewise saw a massive increase in rear-end collisions following installation of the devices.
Don’t you just love it.
Just the first part looks good.
"Sec. . NEW SECTION. 321.258A RED LIGHT CAMERAS PROHIBITED.
The department or a local authority shall not place or cause to be placed on or adjacent to a highway, or maintain or employ the use of, a red light camera.
So along with Mississippi and Texas things are looking up.
So you would have grounds to say that the magistrate accepted your innocence, and that is all that you are required to do. You are innocent. Who else might be guilty is the police's job to find out, not yours without the training or authority.
Innocent or not, my choice was pay the ticket or deal with the consequences. If a human had stopped my daughter's speeding car, the actual offender would have gotten the ticket.
vinnyny: Exactly. My point was that the magistrate was patently WRONG to ask you to do what is clearly police work. The burden of proving guilt is not yours, but the state's, BY LAW. Hence the present system of photo radar is unconstitutional in my opinion.
2 people who think speeders should just pay their speeding tickets and move on.
50 people who are speeders and who object to being caught and will come up with ANY even PARTIALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason as to why Photo Radar is The Devil Incarnate.
I do not speed without regard to traffic and road conditions as well as safety and courtesy, and yet I cannot support present implementations of photo radar based on legal considerations.
Please note that this is just my opinion and therefore just as valuable or worthless as anybody else's here.
And I discuss matters here without resorting to religious imagery, imagine that!
But seriously, I do not think that it would be fair to equate opposition to photo radar to a reason as simplistic as merely the desire to speed. Such a position would imply a judgement on motives that may or may not lie behind a particular opinion and that is just not good form in my view.
I have always accepted your position as being correct - for you.
However, I cannot believe your numbers or opinion since it is not supported by any objective or subjective measure that I can analyze.
Further, I cannot see how your percentages further any debate or support any opinions in this forum, unless you back them up with some link or data that can be verified, analyzed or discussed.
Having said that, I will say that your point of view adds to this forum, since it allows for further debate of both sides of the issue, and therefore is valuable.
Just to further the debate, in a friendly manner here is a link about speeds and their roles in crashes and highway safety:
US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause
US Department of Transportation study finds only five percent of crashes caused by excessive speed.
As lawmakers around the country continue to consider speed limit enforcement as the primary traffic safety measure, the most comprehensive examination of accident causation in thirty years suggests this focus on speed may be misplaced.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated 5,471 injury crashes that took place across the country between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007. Unlike previous studies automatically generated from computerized data found in police reports, researchers in this effort were dispatched to accident scenes before they were cleared. This allowed a first-hand comparison of physical evidence with direct interviews of witnesses and others involved in the incident. NHTSA evaluated the data to determine the factors most responsible for the collision.
"The critical reason is determined by a thorough evaluation of all the potential problems related to errors attributable to the driver, the condition of the vehicle, failure of vehicle systems, adverse environmental conditions, and roadway design," the report explained. "The critical pre-crash event refers to the action or the event that puts a vehicle on the course that makes the collision unavoidable, given reasonable driving skills and vehicle handling of the driver."
Overall, vehicles "traveling too fast for conditions" accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events (page 23). More significant factors included 22 percent driving off the edge of a road, or 11 percent who drifted over the center dividing line.
When driver error was the primary cause of a crash, researchers went further to identify the "critical reason" behind that error. Distraction and not paying attention to the road accounted for 41 percent of the errors. Ten percent of errors were attributed to drivers lacking proper driving skills and either freezing up or overcompensating behind the wheel. Eight percent were asleep, having a heart attack or otherwise incapacitated. A similar eight percent of errors were attributed to driving too fast for conditions and five percent driving too fast for a curve (page 25).
The NHTSA findings are mirrored in accident statistics provided by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The agency's most recent report lists "speed too fast" as the driver error that caused 2.9 percent of crashes in 2007 (view chart, see page 19). More accidents -- 3.8 percent -- were caused in Virginia by drivers falling asleep or becoming ill behind the wheel. Another 14.6 percent were caused by bad weather such as fog, rain and snow. "Speed too fast" was a more significant factor -- 13.7 percent -- in fatal accidents, as compared to 18 percent of fatal accidents involving alcohol and 9.6 percent caused by sleepiness and fatigue ( view full Virginia report in 1.9mb PDF format).
In the NHTSA and Virginia reports, "too fast for conditions" does not mean exceeding the posted speed limit. A vehicle driving 10 MPH on an iced-over road with a 45 MPH limit would be traveling too fast for the conditions if it lost control, but it would not have exceeded the speed limit. The UK Department for Transport isolated cases where only the posted limit was exceeded and found that, "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents" (view UK report).
"Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction," the Road Casualties Great Britain 2007 report stated. "For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents."
A full copy of the NHTSA report is available in a 400k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (U.S. Department of Transportation, 7/15/2008)
Like I said, I have no problem with your position. However, your insistence and the appearance of badgering others into accepting your position can be tedious sometimes.
Please be very clear I do not regard any debate here at Edmund's as a game. I merely like to support my views with any information I can find so that any reader can think for themselves on the evidence upon which I am basing my opinion, that's all. If you chose not to provide any information that can support your view, that is your right not to do so. However, I can then safely and logically assume that such supporting data do not exist unless I can verify is suitably for myself.
If I can accept your right to keep your views, as I always have, I hope that you can find it in yourself to accept my position as well.
Purdue University study concludes raising the interstate speed limit in Indiana had no negative safety consequence.
Purdue University this week released results of a study showing that there was no change in the number of accidents after Indiana increased the maximum freeway speed limit to 70 MPH on July 1, 2005. Civil engineering Professor Fred Mannering led the team that looked at accident data from one year before this change -- when the top legal speed was 65 MPH in rural areas -- for comparison with accident rates a year later.
"Everybody expects that when you increase the speed limit, injuries and the severity of injuries are going to increase, but that hasn't happened on the interstate highway system in Indiana," lead researcher Fred Mannering said in a statement.
Mannering's study noted that expert opinion is divided on this controversial subject. For example, a 1999 report sponsored by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claimed increased limits resulted in higher accident rates. The insurance industry depends on speeding tickets to provide surcharge revenue. Other independent studies, including a 1994 review of the effect of the change from the national 55 limit to 65 on rural roads, have arrived at a contrary conclusion that the higher limit, in fact, saved lives.
Mannering used a statistical model to calculate accident probabilities based on his own examination of data from 390,000 accidents recorded by the Indiana Vehicle Crash Record System. After applying the model, he concluded that the increased speed limit had no effect on the probability of suffering an accident nor did it increase the severity of accidents that did occur.
In 2006, only 5.78 percent of the state's accidents were caused by unsafe speed, a decrease from 2004. The study also noted that a 15 MPH increase in the speed limit did not produce a 15 MPH increase in the actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds increased only 12 MPH. The report suggested that speed limit changes may have had a negative impact on some non-interstate rural roads and that future changes for secondary roads should be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis."
An earlier version of the paper presented before the Transportation Research Board is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below. The report will also appear in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record.
Source: Analysis of the Effect of Speed Limit Increases on Accident-Injury Severities (Purdue University, 6/23/2008)
vhcheng says, " If you chose not to provide any information that can support your view, that is your right not to do so. However, I can then safely and logically assume that such supporting data do not exist unless I can verify is suitably for myself. "
Well, that assumption which you would make would be incorrect.
Like I said : If I WANTED to turn this into a Google "posting battle" I could do so.
And it would prove nothing except that Edmunds has a lot of storage space.
You will learn the truth if you keep looking for it.
The truth will align you with me.
Opposition to photo radar is mostly about speeders wanting to speed unimpeded.
Arguing about higher speed limits is not applicable to this forum.
No matter how fast they are set to, speeders are still going to oppose photo radar.
If Obama came out today and set all USA highway speed limits to 85 MPH , you think any of the police organizations would say, "OH, OK, now that people can drive 85, we can remove our photo radar gear because we can stop doing speed enforcement!!" ??????????????????????
Nope.
Higher speed lmits will not affect photo radar installations at all.
Thank you for not turning this into a posting battle.
I would continue to debate about the issue and not personalities. The post about speed limits only serves to highlight the point that "safe and prudent" speed limits are what is important, not just blind adherence to one speed limit enforced by one mechanism that must be obeyed unquestioningly.
I want a police officer to give a ticket to the dingbat driving at 65 mph in a snow storm just because the limit is 65, ABSOLUTELY. This is thus one more point that speed limits are part of police work, and should be done by the police.
Your desire for "alignment" is respected, but not reciprocated unfortunately. It just reminds me of the old story about three blind men asked to feel an elephant and describe what the "truth" about what an elephant looks like.
I regard myself as one of those blind men and not a know-it-all human being. I shall of course exercise my right to continue evaluating new evidence as it presents itself in this forum and elsewhere, so that any opinion I may form is updated based on evidence.
BUT I DO OBSERVE THE POSTED SPEED LIMITS AT ALL TIMES! I know I am not perfect, but my behaviour in all other aspect of life is alway legal too, not to mention ethical and moral as best as I can make it. However, I am not the topic of discussion here (I hope!)
I do support your point about being involved in determining proper speed limits, just like the good people of British Columbia did that you posted above in one of your few links. And my belief in our system of government is so strong that I truly believe that we as a society will find the correct way to use photo radar or not all, or with some limits.
So I have no problem with what you have just said.
I'm not saying you speed. I never did. The "you" in my post was meaning the "collective YOU of speeders who want higher speed limits" not the personal "you."
I'm saying for people who insist on higher speed limits, then get active and get them set where you want them.
Until they are set WHERE YOU PREFER THEM TO BE, you must obey them.
Agreed larsb! And thank you for being such a good sport.
Of course speed limits should be obeyed. And police should continue to ticket speeders as laid down by law. It is just that the use of photo radar in its present form is not the correct or legal tool for that purpose, at least that is what I think.
What determines placement of photo radar ? I believe that intersections with short yellow lights are chosen to maximize revenue. How many accidents are caused by rear ending people who stop short at intersections with photo radar ?
Quite a long time ago I used to really speed. I was on the Ohio Turnpike doing well over 100. Even though I stopped for gas I made it from one end to the other so, fast, they gave me a speeding ticket. My solution was to throw my toll ticket into the back seat. I told them I lost it. All they did was charge me the maximum toll from one end to the other. They had no way to figure my speed.
As far as using GPS to determine taxes on miles driven, this is because we are driving less and using more fuel efficient cars. There is a loss of revenue on gas taxes as a result. There will be no credit for driving fuel efficient vehicles. This will easily defeated. Disable your GPS trans ponder 4 or 5 days a week. Tell them you are now in a car pool. Then short out the antenna, or cover it with a metallic shield for the 4 or 5 days. There will no doubt be a market for stolen trans ponder chips from cars parked in airports etc. for long periods of time.
I always go to court on any tickets I get. Once the cop lost his ticket book. The judge chewed him out for wasting everyone time. He said we were all not guilty.
I rarely speed now like I once did, but I have little respect for incompetence and even less for greed for extra revenues.
I agree with larsb that the concept of "greed" does not apply in this context. However, the raising of necessary funds must be done according to avenues already available to the cities and other taxing entities, and shortfall cannot be used as the only justification for photo radar while ignoring so many other related issues. And there are so many possibilities for fund-raising, but probably not relevant to the present forum.
Are the shortfalls really from the economy or simply from an irresponsible segment of society (public sector) that loves to spend and spend but seldom comprehends the idea of scaling back?
Spending and spending without scaling back? Kind ot like speeding and speeding to enjoy or whatever without scaling back. Maybe speeders are like tax and spend politicians and legislatures. Don't have wherewithall to moderate and temper.
The Escort Passport 9500ix radar detector makes the claim that it contains locations of stationary red light/photo cameras, etc.
I do not own a radar detector but after 10 years of ticket free driving I know my time is coming...and a pre-emptive $500 radar detector may save more $'s in the long run than it's initial cost.
Any study that finds more than a miniscule percentage of accidents are caused by speeding over the posted speed limit (which are just 2 numbers on a piece of aluminum usually) is surely a fundamentally flawed study, survey, or conclusion.
If you are going to fast for conditions, that is not speeding, that is driver error in judgement, skill, and vehicular capabilities.
My reason for being against photo radar isn't because I want to speed without getting caught, it's because I want to drive reasonably, safely, AND EFFICIENTLY without being fined.
The speed limits in California are ridiculous for the most part, and not a good way to cause efficient traffic flow. If you work for a living, you are most likely for higher speed limits. Those who don't work for a living, could probably live with 55 just fine.
I need my productivity to stay high, so 55 won't do.
If you have more citations than you do accidents, maybe the problem is with the law and/or law enforcment, and not the driver.
If police officers have caused more at fault accidents with your vehicle than you have caused at fault accidents period, total, all inclusively, then there's a big problem.
Right now the score is 1 to 0 in my favor. In 14 years of driving, I've created no at fault accidents involving another vehicle.
In that same time frame I've been rear ended by a police officer driving a city cop car once. I've been rear ended twice total. I've been hit while parked once too, in the side.
All it takes is some driving skill to drive safely, not slow speeds.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm against slow speed limits. I'm against photo radar. However, if speed limits were raised appropriately, I would no longer be a habitual "speeder." Even if speed limits were raised to 100 MPH (maximum), I'd still be against photo radar as it spits in the face of the Constitution to which I believe in.
I sincerely believe the writers of the Constitution to be far more intelligent than the current crop of Politicians. That is my main reason for opposing photo radar. I also oppose photo red light and stop sign non-sense!
I also oppose that running through a red light or stop sign at 99 MPH is the same as a California stop violation, with the same fine!
What happeed to cruel and unusual punishment? $400 bucks for a right turn on red? Give me a break!
Are the cities greedy? maybe not the right word. Are they money grubbing self serving interests? Absolutely!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Please note that I am not condoning speeding in any way. But police should do the policing of all offences, including traffic violations. This news story caught my eye because of the legal concerns about due process from the county prosecutor as they relate to photo radar.
Please also note that the contention that photo radar issues civil citations is not a valid one in my opinion, since the prosecution of such violations was turned into a civil matter as a means of bypassing due process restrictions that normally would have applied. That issue has still not been definitely settled yet, but our legal system will eventually get around to that issue as well.
County Prosecutor Dismisses Criminal Speed Camera Citations
Top prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona will dismiss criminal photo radar citations on legal and constitutional grounds.
Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime.
"The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates," Thomas said.
In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution.
"Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked," Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. "A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation."
Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Thomas' decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program.
"Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works," the press release stated. "DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request."
Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do.
"DPS keeps pressing us on this," Thomas said. "The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention -- there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn't match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle."
Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court.
"You have to have a witness," Thomas said. "It isn't something you can just ignore.... The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause... Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera."
Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.
andres3 says, "All it takes is some driving skill to drive safely, not slow speeds."
If that were true, then we could all take a 24-month government-sanctioned driver school and eliminate ALL WRECKS from our roads !!!
Fact is that even the most skilled drivers with the best reflexes still can have wrecks.
The slower you are going when this unavoidable crash happens, the fewer forces will be applied to your body and car, allowing you to have less severe injuries.
He just made a ruling base on HIS interpretation of EXISTING LAW.
And once again, here we have (as I have always stated on this board) the Law Enforcement Agencies are huge fans of photo radar enforcement because it makes their job easier to do and still tickets speeders identically as if a human stopped and ticketed them.
Opposing it when the people who use it the most and know the most about it are fans of the technology does not make sense to me.
larsb: I agree with your post. I would have no problem with it if it is the LEOs who are doing the monitoring and issuing the citations as required by EXISTING LAW.
I want safe and efficient highways, and I want our local authorities to be well funded. I just want it done in a legal manner following due processes as enshrined in our Constitution, that's all.
Speed and safety on highways is not a simple issue.
German autobahns have a lower fatality rate than highways in some other countries including the USA despite higher travel speeds. However, the policing of the autobahn, as well as strict standards for driver licencing and vehicle maintenance play their role as well in this level of safety. Therefore, those arguing for higher speed limits on US highways should also consider all the other associated levels of maintenance, training and enforcement and their society wide costs that need to accompany higher speed travel if it is to be done safely.
I apologize for the poor formatting. I tried to put in tabs, but the numbers still do not line up.
Motorways (called freeways in North America) have the highest design standards for speed, safety and fuel efficiency. Motorways improve safety by:
prohibiting more vulnerable road users prohibiting slow-moving vehicles, thus reducing speed variation and potential δv for same-direction travel segregating opposing traffic flows with median dividers or crash barriers, thus reducing potential δv for opposite-direction collisions separating crossing traffic by replacing intersections with interchanges, thus reducing potential δv into the side, most vulnerable vehicle section (side impacts are also responsible for some of the most serious traumatic brain injuries) removing roadside obstacles. Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table.
Country Killed/Billion km (Motorways) Killed/Billion km (Non-Motorways) Motorway AADT Road Travel by Motorway % Motorway 2003 Speed Limit in km (mph)
definition: AADT - average annual daily traffic. The bi-direction traffic count representing an average 24-hour day in a year. Sometimes called "traffic density" although it ignores or assumes a constant number of travel lanes.
source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) [1], Risk Values in 2003 and Selected References Values for 2003 -- courtesy of the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, that is, the (German) Federal Highway Research Institute. Travel was computed by dividing the fatality rate by the number of fatalities; AADT by dividing travel by the length of the motorway network. 2003 speed limits were obtained from the Wiki page and verified with other sources.
Many of these things are not true on the average US highway.
Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table.
Almost every highway road I travel on has overpasses with exposed concrete columns, medians which can be traversed easily at high speeds, guardrails, and a very limited number of sand or water barrels.
Good in theory and in practice in locations WHERE it can be done, but it is not as common in the USA as in some other places.
Great comment larsb. I agree with you that we just cannot use the autobahn model without considering how it would play out on our highways, and what would be the associated costs and issues.
How about this technology to control speeding? The proposed system would work on all roads all the time, not just highways and would not require any speed cameras, photo radar based or otherwise.
For those with a need for speed, it will take the thrill out of driving, but the government believes an in-car “spy” device could save lives and make speed cameras and road humps redundant.
The device, which automatically applies the brakes or blocks the accelerator to prevent a driver from exceeding the speed limit, has been successfully tested on Britain’s roads for the first time.
The trial in Leeds was part of a two-year study into “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” (ISA) commissioned by the Department for Transport, which wants to reduce road casualties by 40% by 2010.
Transport for London (TfL), Ken Livingstone’s transport agency, is also interested in the technology and has asked researchers at Leeds University — who conducted the DfT trial — to produce a feasibility study for the capital.
TfL is considering initially fitting limiters onto public service vehicles, such as buses and taxis. However, it also wants to encourage private motorists to install the devices and could give a discount on the congestion charge, which tomorrow rises from £5 to £8 a day.
Experts believe the system — which monitors the speed limit via satellite tracking — would cost up to £1,300 to install now but is likely to be fitted as standard in most cars within a decade.
For the initial trial in Leeds — the first of four six-month trials — researchers recruited 20 volunteers to drive specially modified Skoda Fabias.
Each car was fitted with a black box containing a digital road map showing the speed limits on every road in the city.
A satellite positioning system told the car where it was on the map and alerted the driver, via a digital display on the dashboard, each time he entered a zone with a new speed limit.
If the driver attempted to exceed the limit, a signal was sent to the accelerator or brake pedal to intervene.
“If the driver is demanding something greater than the speed limit, that demand is ignored,” said Oliver Carsten, the research leader and professor of transport safety at Leeds University. “In a 30mph zone the car will basically not accelerate above 30mph.”
Tests following the trial revealed that volunteers were also less likely to break the speed limit when the system was switched off.
Previous modelling has suggested that if limiters were fitted to all cars in Britain, the number of people injured on the roads each year would fall by 20%, while fatalities would be cut by 37% from their present level of 3,221.
Jeremy Clarkson, co- presenter of the BBC’s Top Gear programme and a Sunday Times writer, disagreed. “If you put speed limiters on cars so that they can only go to a certain limit you end up with terrible bunching which actually causes more accidents,” he said. “Tony Blair is not going to tell me how fast to go.”
Car manufacturers are also sceptical about the benefits and would be likely to resist any attempt by the government to make limiters compulsory.
A DfT spokesman said it had no plans to make the use of speed limiters mandatory. “It will be for the industry to take forward the technology in response to consumer demand.”
Bath, UK Councillor proposes to slow traffic by letting roads deteriorate.
Bath, UK Councillor Andy Furse wants the city's roads to deteriorate as a "traffic calming" measure akin to, but cheaper than, speed bumps.
"When people are confronted by less well-maintained road surfaces with potholes, they tend to drive slower," Furse told the Bath Chronicle. "And taxpayers would make significant savings, first because less would be spent on road surfaces, and second because less would be spent on road-calming measures such as speed cameras and road humps."
Furse clarifies that bus and bicycle lanes would be kept free of potholes. Several of Furse's fellow Councillors are less enthusiastic about the idea.
Article Excerpt:
Cllr Sir Elgar Jenkins (Con, Bathwick), the council's executive member for transport and highways, said: "It doesn't stand up. I assumed at first it was a joke, but if Cllr Furse is considering pursuing it, he needs to ask himself exactly what he is doing."
Source: Why potholes are good for Bath (Bath Chronicle (UK), 7/25/2005)
Have seen some info in past that all is not so peachy on Autobahn. Accidents/crashes have very violent outcomes and mangled wreckage due to high veloctiy and "physics". Also a very stupid waste of oil resources for very high speeds. Is photo radar an issue with Autobahn?
Nope, no photo radar on the autobahn, especially on the unrestricted sections. I was just quoting the information to bolster my point that speed and safety are not simple issues. Overall, the autobahn is safer, but there is a lot of work and cost that goes into ensuring that safety, which may not be possible here. If you have any more information indicating a lack of "peachiness" on the autobahn, I'd love to see it.
I agree with you that the safety of high speed travel on the autobahn takes a lot of resources. However, to call it a "very stupid waste" is not correct in my view. The German people have decided that for them, the cost is worth the advantanges to them, real or perceived. We obviously need to make up our mind for us, using our situation and our laws and sense.
However, I, personally, definitely feel safer at the present speed limits in my country and not at 125 mph. If I had my choice of speeds to have an accident, I know what I would choose surely.
Could speed and speed limits be a good topic for an Edmunds board? Don't know what the board "statement" would be, but it would seem to generate a lot of interest with Edmunds readers. Could Hosts consider this?
I think there is already one that might interest you titled "Should the US government bring back the 55 mph max speed limit again?" and it was linked by steve_host in one of his posts above.
Also a very stupid waste of oil resources for very high speeds.
That's more true of planes and speedboats, where you might get 1mpg. A lot of people just fly around or boat recreationally. If society is so concerned with saving fuels, I'd think they'd look at the worst offenders first.
When our buddy Al Gore starts using less fuel than the average person let me know.
lasrb: Look, I can find studies and quotes from officers all over the place that dispute what you just posted.
Statements from individual officers and actual studies are two diffferent things.
As I've said before, look at what the officers around you actually do. Around here, they drive at least 75 mph on limited access highways. Actions speak louder than words.
The simple fact is that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways is not dangerous. Informed drivers have known this for years.
Even photo radar proponents have lately been reduced to admitting that it is a good way to raise revenue, not improve safety. The local official your home state admitted that it failed on limited access highways, and actually had unintended consequences.
"...If Obama came out today and set all USA highway speed limits to 85MPH..."
With an 85mph speed limit it would depend on which vehicle I was driving. My sports car could probably cruise at 100 all day so I would likely do the limit unless I was trying to save gas. My old farm truck would probably self-destruct at 85 so I would drive it much slower.
I would still oppose PR though. :lemon:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
larsb: But until they are changed to YOUR PERSONAL LIKING, they MUST BE OBEYED regardless of whether or not YOU think they are too low.
larsb in 1775: The law of Parliament and the King is the law of the land in the colonies, so all taxes MUST BE PAID, regardless of your views on taxation, and Great Britain MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1851: That fugitive slave MUST BE RETURNED to his master to be punished, regardless of your views on slavery, because the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1928: You CANNOT DRINK that glass of beer, regardless of your views on alcohol consumption, because Prohibition is the law, and MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1977: You CANNOT DRIVE 70 MPH because your car will automatically veer out of control and explode when the speedometer hits 56 mph, causing the death of you and surrounding drivers, and the 55 mph speed limit is the law of the land, and therefore MUST BE OBEYED,
That's why it's a good idea to have a sense of history, and understand why not all laws are accorded the same weight. History has a way of making people too rigid in their viewpoints look foolish.
"...Is it really being "greedy" when the cities are struggling..."
TOUGH! If the cities are struggling they should do what individuals do, cut back. Until I see all the local government officials taking pay cuts or working for free I'll resist them taking more of my money through ANY means including PR.
Without some limits you will soon see roaming bands of politicians knocking people down in the streets and going through their pockets for loose change. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I really hope you are not accusing me of "being too rigid in my viewpoint and looking foolish."
Laws in the United States in 2009 generally reflect the will of society.
Modern society dictates that in order to maintain civilization and not be reduced to a state of chaos, laws must be maintained and obeyed.
If you don't like speed laws, get off your buttocks and get politically active and get them changed.
Until they are changed to your liking, OBEY THEM and do it happily. If you are not happy about doing it, then get it changed.
A huge section, maybe up to 90% of society, is just fine with current speed limits. I don't see a protest movement marching in the streets to get them faster.
If you want your complaining about speed limits to be heard where it might have an impact, this forum is not it.
Opposing photo radar because you think speed limits are set too low is really an untenable position and is taking one issue and accusing it of being falsely related to the other.
Regardless of the speed limit, photo radar will exist to ASSIST law enforcement in monitoring the illegal behavior of excessive speeders. Even if the speed limit were 100 MPH.
Comments
Loophole For Leased Vehicles Found In Red-Light Camera Law
And it only costs $225 to appeal the ticket. :P
Please note that this is not a court decision but it attempts to present both sides of the issue of 24/7 camera surveillance, and may serve as additional material for thoughtful discussion in this forum. Also note that this refers to camera surveillance of people, and presumably directly by law enforcement agencies and not private contractors. Even here there are important considerations and not everything is settled, or has caught up with new technology.
I think that the difference between anonymity and privacy is going to be an important one in our future in determining the correct uses of new surveillance technologies.
from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=364600
Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity
Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt University - School of Law
Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 72, 2002
Abstract:
Government-sponsored camera surveillance of public streets and other public places is pervasive in the United Kingdom and is increasingly popular in American urban centers, especially in the wake of 9/11. Yet legal regulation of this surveillance is virtually non-existent, in part because the Supreme Court has signalled that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places. This article, written for a symposium on the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and technology, contests that stance, at the same time it questions whether the traditional, "probable-cause-forever" view of Fourth Amendment protections makes sense in this technological age. Based on an analysis of the panoptic effects of government camera surveillance among them "anticipatory conformity," fear that private facts will be exposed, and possible decreased loyalty to a surveillance-driven government. This article first argues that the courts should recognize a constitutional right to anonymity in public places. Although courts have rejected constitutional challenges to public camera surveillance, they have yet to address the constitutionality of overt camera *systems*, with zoom and nightvision capacity and the storage and dissemination advantages that digitization brings. Such camera surveillance can chill speech and association, infringe on the rights to movement and repose, and undermine the general right to privacy. It also infringes the Fourth Amendment interest in avoiding unregulated government intrusions. To bolster the latter point, the article reports a study I conducted to ascertain the relative intrusiveness of overt, systematic camera surveillance in the eyes of the public. The results of a survey of almost 200 prospective jurors indicate that camera surveillance is viewed as more intrusive, to a statistically significant degree, than a number of investigative techniques the Supreme Court has found to implicate the Fourth Amendment, including roadblocks.
Building on this latter finding, the article relies heavily on the Court's roadblock jurisprudence in constructing a framework for regulating public camera surveillance. The Court's recent decision in Edmond v. Indianopolis held that a brief seizure at a roadblock set up with the primary purpose of detecting crime may not take place in the absence of individualized suspicion, a significant, difficult-to-detect crime problem (such as illegal immigration), or a crime problem that immediately threatens life and limb (such as drunk driving). The article argues that this caselaw should be read to limit camera systems to areas where a significant crime problem exists, and to require individualized suspicion for targeted camera surveillance. Based on Fourth Amendment and related constitutional jurisprudence, it also contends that the camera location decision must be made by politically accountable officials with public input, that rules governing notice of the surveillance and maintenance and disclosure of surveillance results are mandatory, and that accountability requires direct sanctions on those who violate these rules and periodic dissemination of information about surveillance practices. The article concludes with the suggestion that the traditional Fourth Amendment model requiring probable cause, backed by the exclusion remedy serves neither societal or individual interests well. Surveillance of large numbers of people cannot be justified at the probable cause level, and should not have to be. Nor is the suppression remedy an effective deterrent in this context, since at best it benefits an infinitesimally small number of people subjected to illegal surveillance, and in any event is a poor remedial fit with the types of violations that public surveillance is likely to involve. The dissonance between public surveillance and the individualized suspicion/exclusionary rule model suggests a need for rethinking both the type of justification and the manner of implementation the Fourth Amendment requires.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2671.asp
Here is just a tidbit from the ruling in court.
Keegan is an elected justice of the peace for Maricopa County. His court has jurisdiction over north Glendale, Peoria, Sun City and Surprise. Any driver contesting a freeway speed camera ticket within this jurisdiction will have the $181 fine automatically dismissed.
"It is the determination of this court that the provisions of ARS 41-1722 are unconstitutional and unenforceable within the jurisdiction of this court," Keegan concluded.
Finally, a judge with common sense who follows the Constitution," wrote CameraFraud Tucson organizer Bill Conley.
Iowa already voted to ban red light cameras.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1694.asp
And the interesting part is one of the reasons.
The results have been mixed at best. Even Council Bluffs police admit accidents increased at at least one of the four intersections with cameras. Davenport likewise saw a massive increase in rear-end collisions following installation of the devices.
Don’t you just love it.
Just the first part looks good.
"Sec. . NEW SECTION. 321.258A RED LIGHT CAMERAS PROHIBITED.
The department or a local authority shall not place or cause to be placed on or adjacent to a highway, or maintain or employ the use of, a red light camera.
So along with Mississippi and Texas things are looking up.
Innocent or not, my choice was pay the ticket or deal with the consequences. If a human had stopped my daughter's speeding car, the actual offender would have gotten the ticket.
2 people who think speeders should just pay their speeding tickets and move on.
50 people who are speeders and who object to being caught and will come up with ANY even PARTIALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason as to why Photo Radar is The Devil Incarnate.
I do not speed without regard to traffic and road conditions as well as safety and courtesy, and yet I cannot support present implementations of photo radar based on legal considerations.
Please note that this is just my opinion and therefore just as valuable or worthless as anybody else's here.
And I discuss matters here without resorting to religious imagery, imagine that!
But seriously, I do not think that it would be fair to equate opposition to photo radar to a reason as simplistic as merely the desire to speed. Such a position would imply a judgement on motives that may or may not lie behind a particular opinion and that is just not good form in my view.
That's where the main opposition of photo radar comes from.
Believe it.
All the rest of those arguments are just a smoke screen.
If I were putting a realistic percentage on the reasons for the opposition, I would put it here:
Desire to speed unimpeded: 85%
Completely unjustified "Big Brother-ish" paranoia: 10%
Other: 5%
However, I cannot believe your numbers or opinion since it is not supported by any objective or subjective measure that I can analyze.
Further, I cannot see how your percentages further any debate or support any opinions in this forum, unless you back them up with some link or data that can be verified, analyzed or discussed.
Having said that, I will say that your point of view adds to this forum, since it allows for further debate of both sides of the issue, and therefore is valuable.
Just to further the debate, in a friendly manner here is a link about speeds and their roles in crashes and highway safety:
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2627.asp
US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause
US Department of Transportation study finds only five percent of crashes caused by excessive speed.
As lawmakers around the country continue to consider speed limit enforcement as the primary traffic safety measure, the most comprehensive examination of accident causation in thirty years suggests this focus on speed may be misplaced.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigated 5,471 injury crashes that took place across the country between July 3, 2005 and December 31, 2007. Unlike previous studies automatically generated from computerized data found in police reports, researchers in this effort were dispatched to accident scenes before they were cleared. This allowed a first-hand comparison of physical evidence with direct interviews of witnesses and others involved in the incident. NHTSA evaluated the data to determine the factors most responsible for the collision.
"The critical reason is determined by a thorough evaluation of all the potential problems related to errors attributable to the driver, the condition of the vehicle, failure of vehicle systems, adverse environmental conditions, and roadway design," the report explained. "The critical pre-crash event refers to the action or the event that puts a vehicle on the course that makes the collision unavoidable, given reasonable driving skills and vehicle handling of the driver."
Overall, vehicles "traveling too fast for conditions" accounted for only five percent of the critical pre-crash events (page 23). More significant factors included 22 percent driving off the edge of a road, or 11 percent who drifted over the center dividing line.
When driver error was the primary cause of a crash, researchers went further to identify the "critical reason" behind that error. Distraction and not paying attention to the road accounted for 41 percent of the errors. Ten percent of errors were attributed to drivers lacking proper driving skills and either freezing up or overcompensating behind the wheel. Eight percent were asleep, having a heart attack or otherwise incapacitated. A similar eight percent of errors were attributed to driving too fast for conditions and five percent driving too fast for a curve (page 25).
The NHTSA findings are mirrored in accident statistics provided by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The agency's most recent report lists "speed too fast" as the driver error that caused 2.9 percent of crashes in 2007 (view chart, see page 19). More accidents -- 3.8 percent -- were caused in Virginia by drivers falling asleep or becoming ill behind the wheel. Another 14.6 percent were caused by bad weather such as fog, rain and snow. "Speed too fast" was a more significant factor -- 13.7 percent -- in fatal accidents, as compared to 18 percent of fatal accidents involving alcohol and 9.6 percent caused by sleepiness and fatigue ( view full Virginia report in 1.9mb PDF format).
In the NHTSA and Virginia reports, "too fast for conditions" does not mean exceeding the posted speed limit. A vehicle driving 10 MPH on an iced-over road with a 45 MPH limit would be traveling too fast for the conditions if it lost control, but it would not have exceeded the speed limit. The UK Department for Transport isolated cases where only the posted limit was exceeded and found that, "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents" (view UK report).
"Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction," the Road Casualties Great Britain 2007 report stated. "For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35 per cent of fatal accidents."
A full copy of the NHTSA report is available in a 400k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (U.S. Department of Transportation, 7/15/2008)
Let's not get into a "If you don't have a web page to PROVE what you are saying is true, then I refuse to believe you" game, OK?
I have been following photo radar issues for a few years now.
A lot of what I KNOW is learned from a lot of inputs over those years.
I'm not going to spend all my time tracking down websites to prove anything to anyone here.
I know what I know and I know it because I have learned it. I don't have to post a website to show what I know or that I know how to use Google.
Google "posting battles" could consume a forum and end up proving nothing.
My percentages reflect the reality of the opposition. Believe it or disbelieve it at your choice.
Please be very clear I do not regard any debate here at Edmund's as a game. I merely like to support my views with any information I can find so that any reader can think for themselves on the evidence upon which I am basing my opinion, that's all. If you chose not to provide any information that can support your view, that is your right not to do so. However, I can then safely and logically assume that such supporting data do not exist unless I can verify is suitably for myself.
If I can accept your right to keep your views, as I always have, I hope that you can find it in yourself to accept my position as well.
Study: Higher Interstate Speed Limits are Safe
Purdue University study concludes raising the interstate speed limit in Indiana had no negative safety consequence.
Purdue University this week released results of a study showing that there was no change in the number of accidents after Indiana increased the maximum freeway speed limit to 70 MPH on July 1, 2005. Civil engineering Professor Fred Mannering led the team that looked at accident data from one year before this change -- when the top legal speed was 65 MPH in rural areas -- for comparison with accident rates a year later.
"Everybody expects that when you increase the speed limit, injuries and the severity of injuries are going to increase, but that hasn't happened on the interstate highway system in Indiana," lead researcher Fred Mannering said in a statement.
Mannering's study noted that expert opinion is divided on this controversial subject. For example, a 1999 report sponsored by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety claimed increased limits resulted in higher accident rates. The insurance industry depends on speeding tickets to provide surcharge revenue. Other independent studies, including a 1994 review of the effect of the change from the national 55 limit to 65 on rural roads, have arrived at a contrary conclusion that the higher limit, in fact, saved lives.
Mannering used a statistical model to calculate accident probabilities based on his own examination of data from 390,000 accidents recorded by the Indiana Vehicle Crash Record System. After applying the model, he concluded that the increased speed limit had no effect on the probability of suffering an accident nor did it increase the severity of accidents that did occur.
In 2006, only 5.78 percent of the state's accidents were caused by unsafe speed, a decrease from 2004. The study also noted that a 15 MPH increase in the speed limit did not produce a 15 MPH increase in the actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds increased only 12 MPH. The report suggested that speed limit changes may have had a negative impact on some non-interstate rural roads and that future changes for secondary roads should be evaluated on a "case-by-case basis."
An earlier version of the paper presented before the Transportation Research Board is available in a 140k PDF file at the source link below. The report will also appear in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record.
Source: Analysis of the Effect of Speed Limit Increases on Accident-Injury Severities (Purdue University, 6/23/2008)
Well, that assumption which you would make would be incorrect.
Like I said : If I WANTED to turn this into a Google "posting battle" I could do so.
And it would prove nothing except that Edmunds has a lot of storage space.
You will learn the truth if you keep looking for it.
The truth will align you with me.
Opposition to photo radar is mostly about speeders wanting to speed unimpeded.
That's the truth.
No matter how fast they are set to, speeders are still going to oppose photo radar.
If Obama came out today and set all USA highway speed limits to 85 MPH , you think any of the police organizations would say, "OH, OK, now that people can drive 85, we can remove our photo radar gear because we can stop doing speed enforcement!!" ??????????????????????
Nope.
Higher speed lmits will not affect photo radar installations at all.
I would continue to debate about the issue and not personalities. The post about speed limits only serves to highlight the point that "safe and prudent" speed limits are what is important, not just blind adherence to one speed limit enforced by one mechanism that must be obeyed unquestioningly.
I want a police officer to give a ticket to the dingbat driving at 65 mph in a snow storm just because the limit is 65, ABSOLUTELY. This is thus one more point that speed limits are part of police work, and should be done by the police.
Your desire for "alignment" is respected, but not reciprocated unfortunately. It just reminds me of the old story about three blind men asked to feel an elephant and describe what the "truth" about what an elephant looks like.
I regard myself as one of those blind men and not a know-it-all human being. I shall of course exercise my right to continue evaluating new evidence as it presents itself in this forum and elsewhere, so that any opinion I may form is updated based on evidence.
There is no such thing as "blind adherence" to speed limits.
If you want them raised, then get politically active and get them changed.
But until they are changed to YOUR PERSONAL LIKING, they MUST BE OBEYED regardless of whether or not YOU think they are too low.
I do support your point about being involved in determining proper speed limits, just like the good people of British Columbia did that you posted above in one of your few links. And my belief in our system of government is so strong that I truly believe that we as a society will find the correct way to use photo radar or not all, or with some limits.
So I have no problem with what you have just said.
I'm saying for people who insist on higher speed limits, then get active and get them set where you want them.
Until they are set WHERE YOU PREFER THEM TO BE, you must obey them.
Of course speed limits should be obeyed. And police should continue to ticket speeders as laid down by law. It is just that the use of photo radar in its present form is not the correct or legal tool for that purpose, at least that is what I think.
I believe that intersections with short yellow lights are chosen to maximize revenue.
How many accidents are caused by rear ending people who stop short at intersections with photo radar ?
Quite a long time ago I used to really speed. I was on the Ohio Turnpike doing well over 100. Even though I stopped for gas I made it from one end to the other so, fast, they gave me a speeding ticket. My solution was to throw my toll ticket into the back seat. I told them I lost it. All they did was charge me the maximum toll from one end to the other. They had no way to figure my speed.
As far as using GPS to determine taxes on miles driven, this is because we are driving less and using more fuel efficient cars. There is a loss of revenue on gas taxes as a result. There will be no credit for driving fuel efficient vehicles.
This will easily defeated. Disable your GPS trans ponder 4 or 5 days a week. Tell them you are now in a car pool. Then short out the antenna, or cover it with a metallic shield for the 4 or 5 days. There will no doubt be a market for stolen trans ponder chips from cars parked in airports etc. for long periods of time.
I always go to court on any tickets I get. Once the cop lost his ticket book. The judge chewed him out for wasting everyone time. He said we were all not guilty.
I rarely speed now like I once did, but I have little respect for incompetence and even less for greed for extra revenues.
I thought greed only applied when you "already had enough of something and are still trying to get more of it." ???
I agree with larsb that the concept of "greed" does not apply in this context. However, the raising of necessary funds must be done according to avenues already available to the cities and other taxing entities, and shortfall cannot be used as the only justification for photo radar while ignoring so many other related issues. And there are so many possibilities for fund-raising, but probably not relevant to the present forum.
I do not own a radar detector but after 10 years of ticket free driving I know my time is coming...and a pre-emptive $500 radar detector may save more $'s in the long run than it's initial cost.
If you are going to fast for conditions, that is not speeding, that is driver error in judgement, skill, and vehicular capabilities.
My reason for being against photo radar isn't because I want to speed without getting caught, it's because I want to drive reasonably, safely, AND EFFICIENTLY without being fined.
The speed limits in California are ridiculous for the most part, and not a good way to cause efficient traffic flow. If you work for a living, you are most likely for higher speed limits. Those who don't work for a living, could probably live with 55 just fine.
I need my productivity to stay high, so 55 won't do.
If you have more citations than you do accidents, maybe the problem is with the law and/or law enforcment, and not the driver.
If police officers have caused more at fault accidents with your vehicle than you have caused at fault accidents period, total, all inclusively, then there's a big problem.
Right now the score is 1 to 0 in my favor. In 14 years of driving, I've created no at fault accidents involving another vehicle.
In that same time frame I've been rear ended by a police officer driving a city cop car once. I've been rear ended twice total. I've been hit while parked once too, in the side.
All it takes is some driving skill to drive safely, not slow speeds.
I'm against photo radar.
However, if speed limits were raised appropriately, I would no longer be a habitual "speeder." Even if speed limits were raised to 100 MPH (maximum), I'd still be against photo radar as it spits in the face of the Constitution to which I believe in.
I sincerely believe the writers of the Constitution to be far more intelligent than the current crop of Politicians. That is my main reason for opposing photo radar. I also oppose photo red light and stop sign non-sense!
I also oppose that running through a red light or stop sign at 99 MPH is the same as a California stop violation, with the same fine!
What happeed to cruel and unusual punishment? $400 bucks for a right turn on red? Give me a break!
Are the cities greedy? maybe not the right word. Are they money grubbing self serving interests? Absolutely!
Please also note that the contention that photo radar issues civil citations is not a valid one in my opinion, since the prosecution of such violations was turned into a civil matter as a means of bypassing due process restrictions that normally would have applied. That issue has still not been definitely settled yet, but our legal system will eventually get around to that issue as well.
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2698.asp
County Prosecutor Dismisses Criminal Speed Camera Citations
Top prosecutor in Maricopa County, Arizona will dismiss criminal photo radar citations on legal and constitutional grounds.
Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime.
"The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates," Thomas said.
In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution.
"Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked," Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. "A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation."
Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine. Thomas' decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program.
"Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works," the press release stated. "DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request."
Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do.
"DPS keeps pressing us on this," Thomas said. "The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention -- there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn't match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle."
Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court.
"You have to have a witness," Thomas said. "It isn't something you can just ignore.... The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause... Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera."
Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.
If that were true, then we could all take a 24-month government-sanctioned driver school and eliminate ALL WRECKS from our roads !!!
Fact is that even the most skilled drivers with the best reflexes still can have wrecks.
The slower you are going when this unavoidable crash happens, the fewer forces will be applied to your body and car, allowing you to have less severe injuries.
And once again, here we have (as I have always stated on this board) the Law Enforcement Agencies are huge fans of photo radar enforcement because it makes their job easier to do and still tickets speeders identically as if a human stopped and ticketed them.
Opposing it when the people who use it the most and know the most about it are fans of the technology does not make sense to me.
I want safe and efficient highways, and I want our local authorities to be well funded. I just want it done in a legal manner following due processes as enshrined in our Constitution, that's all.
German autobahns have a lower fatality rate than highways in some other countries including the USA despite higher travel speeds. However, the policing of the autobahn, as well as strict standards for driver licencing and vehicle maintenance play their role as well in this level of safety. Therefore, those arguing for higher speed limits on US highways should also consider all the other associated levels of maintenance, training and enforcement and their society wide costs that need to accompany higher speed travel if it is to be done safely.
I apologize for the poor formatting. I tried to put in tabs, but the numbers still do not line up.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_safety#Motorway
Motorways (called freeways in North America) have the highest design standards for speed, safety and fuel efficiency. Motorways improve safety by:
prohibiting more vulnerable road users
prohibiting slow-moving vehicles, thus reducing speed variation and potential δv for same-direction travel
segregating opposing traffic flows with median dividers or crash barriers, thus reducing potential δv for opposite-direction collisions
separating crossing traffic by replacing intersections with interchanges, thus reducing potential δv into the side, most vulnerable vehicle section (side impacts are also responsible for some of the most serious traumatic brain injuries)
removing roadside obstacles.
Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table.
Country Killed/Billion km (Motorways) Killed/Billion km (Non-Motorways) Motorway AADT Road Travel by Motorway % Motorway 2003 Speed Limit in km (mph)
Austria 5.9 13.4 30,077 23% 130 (80)
Czech Republic 9.9 34.3 25,714 11% 130 (80)
Denmark 3.0 11.9 29,454 25% 130 (80)
Finland 1.4 8.3 22,780 10% 120 (75)
France 4.0 12.8 31,979 21% 130 (80)
Germany 3.8 12.4 48,710 31% 130 (80) (advisory)
Ireland 7.4 11.0 26,730 4% 120 (75)
Japan 4.0 11.9 26,152 9% 100 (60)
Netherlands 2.1 11.7 66,734 41% 120 (75)
Slovenia 8.1 18.7 15,643 19% 130 (80)
Sweden 2.5 9.9 24,183 21% 110 (70)
Switzerland 2.8 11.8 43,641 33% 120 (75)
United Kingdom 2.0 9.3 85,536 23% 110 (70)
United States 5.2 10.7 39,634 24% 120 (75)
definition: AADT - average annual daily traffic. The bi-direction traffic count representing an average 24-hour day in a year. Sometimes called "traffic density" although it ignores or assumes a constant number of travel lanes.
source: International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD) [1], Risk Values in 2003 and Selected References Values for 2003 -- courtesy of the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, that is, the (German) Federal Highway Research Institute. Travel was computed by dividing the fatality rate by the number of fatalities; AADT by dividing travel by the length of the motorway network. 2003 speed limits were obtained from the Wiki page and verified with other sources.
Although these roads may experience greater severity than most roads to due higher speeds in the event of a crash, the probability of a crash is reduced by removing interactions (crossing, passing, slower and opposing traffic), and crash severity is reduced by removing massive, fixed objects or surrounding them with energy attenuation devices (e.g. guardrails, wide grassy areas, sand barrels). These mechanisms deliver lower fatalities per vehicle-kilometer of travel than other roadways, as documented in the following table.
Almost every highway road I travel on has overpasses with exposed concrete columns, medians which can be traversed easily at high speeds, guardrails, and a very limited number of sand or water barrels.
Good in theory and in practice in locations WHERE it can be done, but it is not as common in the USA as in some other places.
from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article539988.ece
The Sunday Times
July 3, 2005
On test: the car that stops you speeding
Dipesh Gadher,Transport Correspondent
For those with a need for speed, it will take the thrill out of driving, but the government believes an in-car “spy” device could save lives and make speed cameras and road humps redundant.
The device, which automatically applies the brakes or blocks the accelerator to prevent a driver from exceeding the speed limit, has been successfully tested on Britain’s roads for the first time.
The trial in Leeds was part of a two-year study into “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” (ISA) commissioned by the Department for Transport, which wants to reduce road casualties by 40% by 2010.
Transport for London (TfL), Ken Livingstone’s transport agency, is also interested in the technology and has asked researchers at Leeds University — who conducted the DfT trial — to produce a feasibility study for the capital.
TfL is considering initially fitting limiters onto public service vehicles, such as buses and taxis. However, it also wants to encourage private motorists to install the devices and could give a discount on the congestion charge, which tomorrow rises from £5 to £8 a day.
Experts believe the system — which monitors the speed limit via satellite tracking — would cost up to £1,300 to install now but is likely to be fitted as standard in most cars within a decade.
For the initial trial in Leeds — the first of four six-month trials — researchers recruited 20 volunteers to drive specially modified Skoda Fabias.
Each car was fitted with a black box containing a digital road map showing the speed limits on every road in the city.
A satellite positioning system told the car where it was on the map and alerted the driver, via a digital display on the dashboard, each time he entered a zone with a new speed limit.
If the driver attempted to exceed the limit, a signal was sent to the accelerator or brake pedal to intervene.
“If the driver is demanding something greater than the speed limit, that demand is ignored,” said Oliver Carsten, the research leader and professor of transport safety at Leeds University. “In a 30mph zone the car will basically not accelerate above 30mph.”
Tests following the trial revealed that volunteers were also less likely to break the speed limit when the system was switched off.
Previous modelling has suggested that if limiters were fitted to all cars in Britain, the number of people injured on the roads each year would fall by 20%, while fatalities would be cut by 37% from their present level of 3,221.
Jeremy Clarkson, co- presenter of the BBC’s Top Gear programme and a Sunday Times writer, disagreed. “If you put speed limiters on cars so that they can only go to a certain limit you end up with terrible bunching which actually causes more accidents,” he said. “Tony Blair is not going to tell me how fast to go.”
Car manufacturers are also sceptical about the benefits and would be likely to resist any attempt by the government to make limiters compulsory.
A DfT spokesman said it had no plans to make the use of speed limiters mandatory. “It will be for the industry to take forward the technology in response to consumer demand.”
from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/553.asp
UK: Bath Official Wants More Potholes
Bath, UK Councillor proposes to slow traffic by letting roads deteriorate.
Bath, UK Councillor Andy Furse wants the city's roads to deteriorate as a "traffic calming" measure akin to, but cheaper than, speed bumps.
"When people are confronted by less well-maintained road surfaces with potholes, they tend to drive slower," Furse told the Bath Chronicle. "And taxpayers would make significant savings, first because less would be spent on road surfaces, and second because less would be spent on road-calming measures such as speed cameras and road humps."
Furse clarifies that bus and bicycle lanes would be kept free of potholes. Several of Furse's fellow Councillors are less enthusiastic about the idea.
Article Excerpt:
Cllr Sir Elgar Jenkins (Con, Bathwick), the council's executive member for transport and highways, said: "It doesn't stand up. I assumed at first it was a joke, but if Cllr Furse is considering pursuing it, he needs to ask himself exactly what he is doing."
Source: Why potholes are good for Bath (Bath Chronicle (UK), 7/25/2005)
I agree with you that the safety of high speed travel on the autobahn takes a lot of resources. However, to call it a "very stupid waste" is not correct in my view. The German people have decided that for them, the cost is worth the advantanges to them, real or perceived. We obviously need to make up our mind for us, using our situation and our laws and sense.
However, I, personally, definitely feel safer at the present speed limits in my country and not at 125 mph. If I had my choice of speeds to have an accident, I know what I would choose surely.
That's more true of planes and speedboats, where you might get 1mpg. A lot of people just fly around or boat recreationally. If society is so concerned with saving fuels, I'd think they'd look at the worst offenders first.
When our buddy Al Gore starts using less fuel than the average person let me know.
I hope you are not lumping me in with those speeders. I think we have already established that compared to me you are a speed demon.
I object to PR on constitutional grounds and out of a general distrust of those in positions of power.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Statements from individual officers and actual studies are two diffferent things.
As I've said before, look at what the officers around you actually do. Around here, they drive at least 75 mph on limited access highways. Actions speak louder than words.
The simple fact is that exceeding the speed limit on limited access highways is not dangerous. Informed drivers have known this for years.
Even photo radar proponents have lately been reduced to admitting that it is a good way to raise revenue, not improve safety. The local official your home state admitted that it failed on limited access highways, and actually had unintended consequences.
With an 85mph speed limit it would depend on which vehicle I was driving. My sports car could probably cruise at 100 all day so I would likely do the limit unless I was trying to save gas. My old farm truck would probably self-destruct at 85 so I would drive it much slower.
I would still oppose PR though. :lemon:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
larsb in 1775: The law of Parliament and the King is the law of the land in the colonies, so all taxes MUST BE PAID, regardless of your views on taxation, and Great Britain MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1851: That fugitive slave MUST BE RETURNED to his master to be punished, regardless of your views on slavery, because the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1928: You CANNOT DRINK that glass of beer, regardless of your views on alcohol consumption, because Prohibition is the law, and MUST BE OBEYED.
larsb in 1977: You CANNOT DRIVE 70 MPH because your car will automatically veer out of control and explode when the speedometer hits 56 mph, causing the death of you and surrounding drivers, and the 55 mph speed limit is the law of the land, and therefore MUST BE OBEYED,
That's why it's a good idea to have a sense of history, and understand why not all laws are accorded the same weight. History has a way of making people too rigid in their viewpoints look foolish.
TOUGH! If the cities are struggling they should do what individuals do, cut back. Until I see all the local government officials taking pay cuts or working for free I'll resist them taking more of my money through ANY means including PR.
Without some limits you will soon see roaming bands of politicians knocking people down in the streets and going through their pockets for loose change. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Laws in the United States in 2009 generally reflect the will of society.
Modern society dictates that in order to maintain civilization and not be reduced to a state of chaos, laws must be maintained and obeyed.
If you don't like speed laws, get off your buttocks and get politically active and get them changed.
Until they are changed to your liking, OBEY THEM and do it happily. If you are not happy about doing it, then get it changed.
A huge section, maybe up to 90% of society, is just fine with current speed limits. I don't see a protest movement marching in the streets to get them faster.
If you want your complaining about speed limits to be heard where it might have an impact, this forum is not it.
Opposing photo radar because you think speed limits are set too low is really an untenable position and is taking one issue and accusing it of being falsely related to the other.
Regardless of the speed limit, photo radar will exist to ASSIST law enforcement in monitoring the illegal behavior of excessive speeders. Even if the speed limit were 100 MPH.