Photo Radar



  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,457
    IIHS Creates Interactive Speed- and Red Light-Camera Map (Straightline)

    (one of these days I'm going to have to visit that little bitty Mexican state of HiAk down there).
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Another state sees the photo radar scam for what it truly is.


    Photo Enforcement Banned in Mississippi

    Mississippi governor signs comprehensive ban on red light cameras and speed cameras into law.

    As of last Friday, no jurisdiction had the authority to enter into a contract with a private company to operate either a red light cameras or speed camera system in the state of Mississippi. With a stroke of his pen, Governor Haley Barbour (R) had quietly signed into law one of the most comprehensive bans on photo enforcement in the country after the state legislature put the proposal on his desk with overwhelming bipartisan support.

    The final tally in favor of House Bill 1568 was 111-9 in the state House and 42-9 in the state Senate, both veto-proof margins. As a result of the proposal becoming law, McComb, Natchez, Southaven and Tupelo must immediately stop their planned efforts to install automated ticketing machines. Columbus and Jackson have until October 1 to pull the plug on their operational devices. The Columbus City Council has already taken action to remove the city's lone camera at 14th Avenue and Waterworks Road.

    Mississippi is not alone in moving to ban photo ticketing. A number of independent studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase the number of collisions at intersections where they are used (view studies). This fact has driven states around the country to turn against the use of photo ticketing. The Montana state Senate Highways and Transportation Committee yesterday held a hearing to consider a ban on traffic cameras that the House had passed in February (view bill).

    In 2006, the West Virginia state legislature by overwhelming margins passed a photo ticketing ban into law. Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin have also banned automated citations through judicial or legislative action.

    Article Excerpt:

    2009 Regular Session

    By: Representatives Blackmon, DuVall
    House Bill 1568 (As Sent to Governor)



    SECTION 1. (1) (a) Neither the board of supervisors of any county nor the governing authority of any municipality shall adopt, enact or enforce any ordinance authorizing the use of automated recording equipment or system to enforce compliance with traffic signals, traffic speeds or other traffic laws, rules or regulations on any public street, road or highway within this state or to impose or collect any civil or criminal fine, fee or penalty for any such violation.

    (b) Any county or municipality using automated recording equipment or system shall remove the equipment or system before October 1, 2009.

    (2) For the purposes of this section, the term "automated recording equipment or system" means a camera or optical device installed to work in conjunction with a traffic control signal or radar speed detection equipment or both and designed to record images that depict the license plate attached to the rear of a motor vehicle that is not operated in compliance with instructions of the traffic control signal or the posted speed limit.

    SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Well, MS needs to be updated as of last Friday. :)

    I want to go to HIAK too, but I can't find a road that goes south from Texas that will take me there.

    The map is neat though. Can anyone guess which states will NEVER get my tourist revenue as long as photo enforcement is present?
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Live by the sword, die by the sword. A system that lives on revenue will die when there is a money hit involved.


    Photo Radar's Negative Impact On Tourism

    Dean Kennedy posted this insightful comment, and my response follows:

    I wonder if Supreme Soviet Napolitano considered the tourism consequences when she unleashed this nauseating money grab. Think about it... a tourist from back east comes out in January to pay a few hundred a night to stay at a hotel and a hundred or two to play golf each day, and when he gets home he gets a thank you from the state of Arizona with a few hundred bucks worth of speeding tickets. Think he's coming back? The sad part is that the idiot politicians will be in denial for a few years before they figure it out. So they will have to rescind the Big Brother cameras and spend $50 million or so more of taxpayer money begging people to come back to the new, somewhat less Soviet like state of Arizona. Maybe Comrade Napolitano will end up as Comrade Obama's running mate. If it sounds desperate, it is. I can dream, can't I?

    My response:

    There is DEFINITELY a tourism hit coming from the speed cameras. Here's a true story to demonstrate:

    Last fall my girlfriend's relatives in North Scottsdale had family from all over the country come out for Thanksgiving. They came from New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Los Angeles, and Orange County.

    They were all immediately shocked, outraged, and disgusted at the presence of speed cameras everywhere. One was pulled over "on suspicion of DUI" even though she hadn't had a drink at all that day. The reason? She turned on her headlights about a second after she put the car into gear. This was "just cause" for a DUI stop, complete with two cop cars and a breathalyzer.

    Luckily for her the breathalyzer came in at .00, which makes a conviction tough even in arrest-happy Scottsdale. So she got away that time.

    The point here is that everyone in attendance swore never to return to Scottsdale. Not only were they unimpressed by the town itself - everyone thought it was bland, barren, and boring - but the presence of the Soviet-style cameras was a huge turnoff.

    To top it all, one of the cousins from LA was greeted at home by three photo tickets in the mailbox. You see, in So Cal, you can drive up to 85 mph on the freeways with no fear of cops. Scottsdale seemingly capitalizes on this by speed-trapping visitors from states were you can actually drive without Big Brother watching you every single minute.

    F*ck Scottsdale. Writing this has gotten me pissed off all over again. Oh yeah, we're one of the many visitors from that weekend who swore never to return again. We may go visit friends in Phoenix but will not set foot, nor give one cent in sales tax revenue, to the corrupt and despicable City of Scottsdale.

    To sum it up:

    - Scottsdale is experiencing a crash in property tax revenue, with a record 48% of property tax bills going unpaid this year, and more to come.
    - Scottsdale has publicly discussed the sales tax crisis, thanks to a complete standstill in auto sales now that the Scottsdale phonies are ruined and can no longer get credit to buy/lease cars.
    - Scottsdale tourism is way down, per the AZ Republic this week, and hotel/sales tax revenues are crashing.
    - And now to top it all, they're strongly discouraging visitors with their Soviet speed cameras and abusive DUI procedures.

    Nice going. The "leadership" of the City of Scottsdale is a perfect example of why you should NEVER raise children in Scottsdale or let them go to Scottsdale schools. The brain damage is lifelong and irreversible.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    That post is completely ridiculous. It's an exercise on hating on a town for merely enforcing the speed limit laws.

    Here is the key statement:

    "and when he gets home he gets a thank you from the state of Arizona with a few hundred bucks worth of speeding tickets"

    You know what?

    He could visit Scottsdale and have all that fun and spend all that money any time, and DRIVE THE D*MN SPEED LIMIT, and not get one single ticket.


    Don't speed wildly when on vacation/
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Or just don't visit micromanaging little fiefdoms (unable to manage their own finances, so they resort to cash grabs at the urging of crony capitalist garbage) in Arizona. It's just a matter of time until the Mexican mafia warfare really invades anyway, so probably no loss. Spend your recreational dollars elsewhere.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Anyone arranging their vacation plans to avoid cities which do speed enforcement is just being foolish.
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJMember Posts: 10,379
    Hmmm that map is all well and good but NJ does indeed have red light cameras. I pass a couple every day going to work.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    I don't know of a city that doesn't do speed enforcement.

    But, there's nothing wrong with voting with one's wallet if they don't wish to be a part of the Orwellian Redflex society.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Vote with your wallet, sure....good thing to do.

    But not for idiotic reasons.

    Not because you want to speed unimpeded.

    If you speed in real life, in your normal life, as a matter of course, just make an adult decision to "not speed while I'm on vacation because I'd rather spend my hard-earned money on vacation fun and not paying a ticket."

    How hard is that?
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Here is an article some may find interesting about how photo enforcement may impact tourism money. There is a detailed graph of speed traps by state as well on the same page.


    The Traveling Public Can Go Elsewhere

    July 3rd, 2008 Posted in James Baxter, Speed Traps, Traffic Tickets

    By James Baxter, NMA President

    According to public opinion, there are 57,000 speed traps in the United States. That’s how many speed traps have been listed by individuals on, a website sponsored by the NMA. That averages out to 1140 speed traps per state.

    Of course some states lead the charge, like California with 5399 speed traps. On the other end of the spectrum is Alaska with “only” 51 speed traps. These are not numbers you’re likely to find published in state tourism brochures. However, they are numbers you might want to consider when planning your next vacation.

    Speed traps are an economic phenomenon; they are a source of revenue for state and local governments, local court systems and police departments. Adding extra juice to the financial pie are federal funds targeted on speed enforcement. This is a double dipping extravaganza where police departments not only bag the fines but also get federal funds for manpower, equipment, and related expenses.

    We the people get to pay for this on both ends, through our taxes and then the ticket fines and insurance surcharges.

    The chart at the bottom of this post lists the number of speed traps in each state. You might want to write a letter to the governor and/or tourism agency in one or more of these states, perhaps a state you were planning on visiting, and let them know that while you’re happy to spend money on goods and services you are not keen on being milked by the state patrol or a small town ticket mill. Consequently, you are reconsidering your travel plans.

    You will probably receive a condescending bureaucratic reply saying something like “if you abide by our traffic laws you should have no occasion to be stopped and cited by one of our fine police officers.” This, of course, is nonsense and they know it.

    But, bottom line, they’ll get the message “if you’re going to screw the traveling public, the traveling public can go elsewhere.”
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    It's not "screwing" the traveling public, ONE BIT !!!

    I can drive through EVERY ONE of those 57,000 speed traps and never get ONE TICKET !!!

    It's only targeting those among the traveling public who cannot make "driving the speed limit" a part of their life !!!!

    Lawbreakers: Quit crying about getting caught and just drive the speed limit !!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    What if one avoids a given area because they avoid anything that supports the ideal of parasitic groups like Redflex? EVERY city has speed enforcement, but every city does not have an amoral surveillance grid to make up for their lack of ability to manage finances. Would you say avoiding such locales is idiotic? Is acting in personal principle idiotic?

    "Not debatable" is another personal value judgment. "Indefensible" is likewise.

    Re: my lack of maturity...maybe you are just interpreting me wrong :shades:
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    To make up for fiscal gaps caused by overpaid underworked public servants, and shortsighted governments on every level?

    Arbitrary numbers aid those causes more than any others.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064

    Let me guess, you also like to restrict traffic flow in the left lane... ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Your "personal principle" is that it's OK to get a human ticket but not a photo radar ticket?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Nope. But I won't make plans to move over for an unsafe speeder if I'm in the left lane with nowhere else to go.

    His/Her desire to speed excessively has nothing to do with me.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    My personal principle is that the public sector shouldn't subsidize groups like Redflex
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Nobody asked you to leave the roadway to let a speeder pass :P

    So now there is plain old speeding and excessive speeding? Sounds like more subjectivity.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Yep, just like there is "self defense murder" and "plain old homicide" and "serial murder" and "mass murder."

    Many actions have degrees of awfulness which are not subjective at all.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Ah, cynical humor. I recognize that barely.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Ah the nice red herring, speeding and murder being used hand in hand. Nice and dramatic.

    So what defines excessive, and who defines it?

    Why should a public sector that has done virtually nothing properly in at least 70 years be trusted to this?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Humor, with an underlying bedrock of truth.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Well, it needs no definition.

    Let me help you identify it:

    When (using your driving habits as an example, not my own to make it easier for you) you are driving along 10-15 mph over the limit, and a dude comes zooming up behind you wanting to pass or for you to get out of the way?

    That guy. Excessive speeding.

    It might not have a simple definition, but we ALL know it when we see it.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    " with an underlying bedrock of truth. "

    And fantasy, too, apparently?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    No red herring at all.

    It was what came to mind when I wanted to point out a simple example of an action that has varying degrees of awfulness.

    Was not comparing murder to speeding at all.

    Although many speeders have gone to jail for vehicular manslaughter, so maybe there is more of a connection than you thought?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    What part was fantasy? Do tell...
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Many speeders go to jail for manslaughter? What determines "many"?

    Seeing as at any given time the majority of vehicles on the road seem to be exceeding the limit by at least 1mph, and with hundreds of millions of vehicles on the road...that's a lot of manslaughter if "many" are being sent to jail. I do know that quite a few souls are locked up in the American justice system, which gets to own both some of the highest crime rates and highest incarceration rates in the developed world (nothing broken there for sure), but still...
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Really, you don't need to be be condescending and "help" me. It might almost be a breach of "etiquette" :shades:

    On local highways outside of urban areas, a substantial amount of traffic, possibly even the majority, moves along at that 10-15 over the obsolete and incompetently set limit. The slowpokes keep right, the rest keep left, and it's no problem. If not, it's no skin off my back to pass on the right.

    So 10 over is the "excessive" standard now? Is that per Redflex or per micromanaging little suburbs that need money and need it now?
  • ClairesClaires Chicago areaMember Posts: 1,222


    Need help getting around? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Here is an interesting article about the economic impact of speed limits:


    Govt defends speed limits, despite road and economic toll

    Posted Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:37pm AEDT
    Updated Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:46pm AEDT

    An Australian car testing company spokesman says Alice Springs has lost business to remote areas of Spain and Africa because speed testing is no longer allowed in Central Australia.

    Doug Gould says he believes car testing previously generated between $6 million and $9 million a year in revenue for hotels and other businesses in Alice Springs.

    But since speed limits were introduced on remote roads, he says international car manufacturers are looking elsewhere to test their vehicles.

    "Any major brand name you can think of in the world, you name that brand and they have done testing in Alice Springs ... Apart from the Australian companies for whom Alice is close and relatively cheap, I think all the rest will stop."

    Mr Gould says car manufacturers are usually getting ready to test their vehicles over the next few months, when conditions are hot in Central Australia. But he says he hasn't been approached by any international car manufacturers since speed limits were introduced.

    "We've certainly had no inquiries from European companies at all this year which would be the first year ... in four or five years that we have had no inquiries."

    The comments were made a day after the Territory Government came out in defence of its decision to introduce speed limits on the Territory's open roads.

    The CLP Opposition has criticised the new laws, saying 45 people have been killed on Territory roads since the speed limit was introduced in January, six more than at this time last year. The fact more people have died on Territory roads this year shows the speed limits are pointless, the Opposition says.

    But Transport Minister Delia Lawrie says it will take years for the new laws to have any real effect.

    "Right around Australia, in every single state and territory where they have really tried to address their road toll by bringing in a raft of road safety changes, they've all taken years to actually see the reduction in the tolls start to happen."

    Her comments were backed up by a car safety expert, Professor Jack McLean from Adelaide University's Centre for Automotive Safety Research.

    "I would think it would take more than 10 years before you'd be able to see anything convincing in a statistical sense just simply because the actual number of fatalities are fortunately very small," he said.
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    This is an older article, but makes for interesting reading on the economic impact of speed limits. There are pros and cons to speed limits too, imagine that!

    When money talks, politicians do listen :)

    excerpt from:

    This paper assesses the consequences of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph or removing it altogether. It looks at the likely effects on actual speeds, safety, the environment and the economy.

    The measure of speed generally used when setting speed limits is the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles travel. On motorways in the UK, the 85th percentile speed for cars is approximately 85 mph, i.e. 15 mph above the current limit. An increase in the speed limit to 80 mph would be expected to lead to a rise in the 85th percentile speed of around 2.5 mph, to 87.5 mph. This would mean a greatly reduced percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit and the majority would be below the Association of Chief Police Officers' guideline level for prosecution. Removal of the speed limit altogether would be expected to lead to an increase in the 85th percentile speed to no more than 95 mph (10 mph more than today), which is the current level on those autobahns in Germany that are unrestricted.

    The impact on safety is the most obvious area of concern and there will be those who find it hard to accept that raising the speed limit would not have a detrimental effect. International comparisons, however, show no correlation between motorway speed limits and accident rates. Evidence from the United States indicates that overall accident rates and insurance claims fell when freeway speed limits were raised, contrary to the predictions of many. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that an increase in the motorway speed limit in the UK would result in a higher accident rate and it is possible that it could reduce. The most cautious estimate is that an increased motorway speed limit would be neutral in safety terms.

    The impact of a raised motorway speed limit on the environment has been assessed in terms of the emissions of toxic pollutants, carbon dioxide and noise.

    Most of the toxic emissions covered by the National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) are within their target levels or are set to meet them, as emission controls improve. The increases arising from small changes in actual speeds would be insignificant. Levels of only two pollutants, nitrogen dioxide and particulates, are forecast to exceed their NAQS targets under any foreseeable circumstances. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, the target is likely to be exceeded only in the centres of the largest cities. There will not be a problem along sections of motorway where traffic is flowing freely enough to permit a higher speed limit to be exploited.

    Transport contributes only a quarter of airborne particulates and most of that comes from the large diesel engines of buses and heavy goods vehicles, which would not be affected by a change in speed limit.

    The ABD does not accept that global climate change is caused by human activity and emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Nevertheless, even if the gas were accepted to be a 'pollutant', an increase in the motorway speed limit would have a negligible effect on its concentration in the atmosphere. It is calculated that removal of the motorway speed limit altogether would increase man-made emissions in the UK by only 0.4% and all CO2 emissions by just 0.016%.

    Higher speeds would have a small effect on the frequency of traffic noise, most of which is generated between a vehicle's tyres and the road surface. The high proportion of heavy goods vehicles on motorways contributes significantly to overall noise levels and will largely mask any change in the component from cars and other light vehicles. Any increases in noise will be much less than the reductions to be achieved from the Government's programme for resurfacing the motorway and trunk road network.

    Increasing the motorway speed limit would result in significant economic benefits from time savings and these would greatly outweigh the additional costs of resources consumed, even assuming the high, pre-tax fuel prices which prevailed in 2000. It is estimated that an increase to 80 mph would lead to net savings of around £50 million per year. If the limit were removed altogether, the savings would increase to around £130 million per year. In addition, there would be a significant increase in tax revenue to the Treasury due to increased fuel consumption. This could be as much as £840 million per year if the speed limit were removed altogether.

    The ABD recommends, therefore, that there should be an immediate increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 mph. After a suitable period of acclimatisation to a higher speed limit, possibly three years, consideration should be given to a further increase or removal of the limit altogether. Training and testing of drivers must be improved in motorway driving skills, particularly judgment of speed and distance in conditions of restricted visibility. The anomaly under which exceeding the speed limit on motorways is punished more severely than on other roads should be removed.
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Appendix 1 from:

    Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999:
    Cars 63.3 billion
    Light vans 8.5 billion

    Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions and 1 km = 0.621 miles, total vehicle-miles per year spent travelling on motorways in free flow:

    Cars 63.3 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 23.59 billion
    Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 x 0.621 = 3.17 billion

    Assuming average speed with current speed limit for cars and light vans is 72mph, time spent travelling per year on motorways in free flow:

    Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 327,638,888.9 hours
    Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 72.0 = 44,027,777.8 hours

    a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph

    If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be:

    Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 316,644,295.3 hours
    Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 74.5 = 42,550,335.6 hours

    Thus the time saved per year from an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80mph would be:

    Cars 10,994,593.6 hours
    Light vans 1,477,442.2 hours

    The all-week average values of time for an average vehicle (1998 prices) are:

    Cars £9.23 per hour
    Light vans £8.58 per hour

    The value of time saved per year would then be:

    Cars 10,994,593.6 x 9.23 = £101,480,099
    Light vans 1,477,442.2 x 8.58 = £12,676,454
    Total £114,156,553

    b) No speed limit

    If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82 mph. The time spent travelling on motorways per year in free flow would then be:

    Cars (23.59 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 287,682,926.8 hours
    Light vans (3.17 x 109) ÷ 82.0 = 38,658,536.6 hours

    Thus the time saved per year from removal of the motorway speed limit would be:

    Cars 39,955,962.1 hours
    Light vans 5,369,241.2 hours

    The value of time saved per year would then be:

    Cars 39,955,962.1 x 9.23 = £368,793,530
    Light vans 5,369,241.2 x 8.58 = £46,068,090
    Total £414,861,620
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Appendix 2 from:

    Vehicle-kilometres travelled on motorways in 1999:
    Cars 63.3 billion
    Light vans 8.5 billion

    Assuming 60% are undertaken in free-flow conditions, total vehicle-kilometres affected by an increase in the motorway speed limit:

    Cars 63.3 x 0.6 = 37.98 billion
    Light vans 8.5 x 0.6 = 5.10 billion

    Fuel Costs

    The relationship between average speed and fuel use is given by the equation:

    Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.00282(V) + 0.00001910(V2)
    Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.00328(V) + 0.00002630(V2)

    Where: L = fuel consumption (litres per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour)

    For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), fuel consumption is:

    Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.326697 + 0.256345 = 0.098548 l/km
    Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.379988 + 0.352978 = 0.175590 l/km

    a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph

    If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so fuel consumption would be:

    Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.338033 + 0.274444 = 0.105311 l/km
    Light vansL = 0.2026 - 0.393174 + 0.377900 = 0.187326 l/km

    The increase in annual fuel consumption would be:

    Cars (0.105311 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 256,858,740 l
    Light vans (0.187326 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 59,853,600 l
    Total 316,712,340 l

    The resource cost of fuel and the total tax on fuel (Excise Duty plus VAT) in 1998 and 2000 were:

    1998 2000
    Resource cost 12.1 p/litre 20.0 p/litre
    Tax element 55.3 p/litre 58.5 p/litre

    The increase in resource costs per year would be:

    At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.121 = £38,322,193
    At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.200 = £63,342,468

    The increase in tax revenue per year would be:

    At 1998 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.553 = £175,141,924
    At 2000 Prices 316,712,340 x 0.585 = £185,276,189

    b) No speed limit

    If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so fuel consumption would be:

    Cars L = 0.1689 - 0.372071 + 0.332496 = 0.129325 l/km
    Light vans L = 0.2026 - 0.432763 + 0.457835 = 0.227672 l/km

    The increase in annual fuel consumption would be:

    Cars (0.129325 - 0.098548) x (37.98 x 109) = 1,168,910,460 l
    Light vans (0.227672 - 0.175590) x (5.1 x 109) = 265,618,200 l
    Total 1,434,528,660 l

    The increase in resource costs per year would be:

    At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.121 = £173,577,968
    At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.200 = £286,905,732

    The increase in tax revenue per year would be:

    At 1998 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.553 = £793,294,349
    At 2000 Prices 1,434,528,660 x 0.585 = £839,199,266

    Non-Fuel Costs

    Non-fuel costs are calculated from the formula: C = a1 + (b1 ÷ V)
    Where: C = cost (pence per kilometre), V = speed (kilometres per hour), a1 and b1 are constants for each vehicle type.

    Cars C = 3.040 + (15.54 ÷ V)
    Light vans C = 4.336 + (38.28 ÷ V)

    For the current average speed of 72 mph (115.85 kph), non-fuel costs are:

    Cars C = 3.040 + 0.13414 = 3.17414 p/km
    Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.33043 = 4.66643 p/km

    a) Speed limit raised to 80 mph

    If the speed limit were raised to 80 mph, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 74.5 mph (119.87 kph), so non-fuel costs would be:

    Cars C = 3.040 + 0.12964 = 3.16964 p/km
    Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.31935 = 4.65535 p/km

    The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be:

    Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0316964) x (37.98 x 109) = £1,709,100
    Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0465535) x (5.1 x 109) = £565,080
    Total £2,274,180

    b) No speed limit

    If the speed limit were removed, the average speed for cars and light vans is assumed to increase to 82.0 mph (131.94 kph), so non-fuel costs would be:

    Cars C = 3.040 + 0.11778 = 3.15778 p/km

    Light vans C = 4.336 + 0.29013 = 4.62613 p/km

    The decrease in annual non-fuel costs would be:

    Cars (0.0317414 - 0.0315778) x (37.98 x 109) = £6,213,528
    Light vans (0.0466643 - 0.0462613) x (5.1 x 109) = £2,055,300
    Total £8,268,828
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    This article raises some interesting questions for discussion.


    Lafayette Online | Community News, Purdue News

    Higher interstate speed limit proves safe for Indiana

    By Staff Reports, Purdue University News Service
    Posted June 23, 2008 (552 views)

    WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — Researchers at Purdue University have determined that raising the speed limit from 65 to 70 on Interstate 65 in Indiana has not increased the probability of fatalities or severe injuries.

    “These findings are important because the influence of speed limits on roadway safety has been a subject of continuous debate in the state of Indiana and nationwide,” said Fred Mannering, a professor of civil engineering. “Indiana highway-related accidents result in about 900 fatalities and 40,000 injuries annually and place an incredible social and economic burden on the state.”

    The findings add new fuel to an ongoing debate, with some studies indicating that the benefits of raising the speed limit outweigh potential safety hazards while others suggest just the opposite.

    “The safety of raising the speed limit has been a matter of considerable concern in Indiana since the state raised its speed limits on rural interstates and selected multilane highways on July 1, 2005,” Mannering said. “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.”

    Findings are detailed in a research paper presented earlier this year at a meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of science and engineering. The paper, appearing in an upcoming issue of the Transportation Research Record, was written by Mannering and research assistant Nataliya V. Malyshkina.

    The researchers used a series of mathematical equations in “multinomial logit models” to calculate accident probabilities based on motor vehicle accident data from 2004 and 2006, before and after the speed limit increased. The models showed that the increased speed limit did not affect the probability of suffering a severe injury in an accident.

    Understanding the magnitude of the safety impact of increasing speed limits, or whether safety is improved or compromised, remains a contentious subject, Mannering said.

    That’s because research has not been able to convincingly unravel the effects of speed limit changes from factors such as speed enforcement; vehicle miles traveled; vehicle occupancy; seat belt usage; alcohol use; proportions of passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles; and vehicle safety features, including air bags and antilock brakes.

    The models used in the research calculate “estimated probabilities” based on accident data. Of the 204,382 accidents on state highways in 2004, 21 percent resulted in injuries and about 0.4 percent were fatal. The same percentages were seen in the 182,922 accidents in 2006. Comparing only highways where the speed limit rose to 70 showed virtually no change from 2004 to 2006.

    The speed-limit increase made Indiana the 30th state to raise interstate speed limits up to 70 mph on rural interstates.

    Findings by other researchers suggest even higher speed limits on interstate highways might also result in no rise in the probability of severe injuries.

    “If going from 65 to 70 doesn’t have a significant effect on the severity of accidents, you have to ask yourself, what about 70 to 75?” Mannering said. “At what point does it begin to impact safety?”

    The change has highlighted the tradeoff between speed and safety, a debate that began more than three decades ago since passage of the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act in 1974, which mandated a 55 mph national maximum speed limit on interstate highways in the United States, Mannering said.

    State and federal speed-limit policy changes have been driven by various research findings and subsequent legislation, including the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which gave states freedom to set interstate speed limits.

    Most research efforts have concluded that the 1974-mandated 55 mph interstate speed limit saved lives, a conclusion that has been confirmed by some studies looking at recent speed limit increases on interstates.

    “For example, one study found that a speed limit increase from 55 to 65 resulted in roughly a 3 percent increase in the accident rate and a 24 percent increase in the probability of a fatality once an accident occurred,” Mannering said. “But then other studies have contended that legislation-enabled speed-limit increases have actually saved lives. One study argued that increasing from 55 to 65 saved lives because of shifts in law enforcement resources, the ability of higher speed limit interstates to attract riskier drivers away from inherently more dangerous non-interstate highways and reducing how often drivers speed up and slow down.”

    The state also increased the speed limit from 55 to 60 on non-interstate multilane roads, but findings were inconclusive regarding the impact on those roadways, Mannering said.

    However, the researchers cautioned that future speed limit increases should be carefully assessed for those roads on a case-by-case basis. The potential for accidents is higher on such roadways because of factors including stop-and-go traffic and vehicles entering the road from various businesses and residential areas.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    larsb: Nope. But I won't make plans to move over for an unsafe speeder if I'm in the left lane with nowhere else to go.

    His/Her desire to speed excessively has nothing to do with me.

    Most drivers are driving at 75-80 mph on limited access highways. So virtually everyone is "speeding excessively" by your defintion. Yet the roads are safer than ever before...

    Informed drivers realize that blocking the flow of traffic on a limited access highway does nothing to improve safety, and is actually counterproductive to that effort.

    It's not 1949 anymore...the typical speed on limited access highways is 75 mph. It's perfectly safe, and informed drivers know it.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    larsb: Although many speeders have gone to jail for vehicular manslaughter, so maybe there is more of a connection than you thought?

    People who go to jail for vehicular manslaughter aren't there because they had an accident while driving 75-80 mph in the 65 mph zone of a limited access highway.

    They were driving under the influence, or drag racing on a public road, and caused a fatal accident. Huge difference.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Maybe you should try to INFORM all those cops who know that speeding is against the law and are sworn to enforce it.

    Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,361
    larsb: Maybe you should try to INFORM all those cops who know that speeding is against the law and are sworn to enforce it.

    When those cops obey the law, let me know. Until then, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    larsb: Next time you get stopped, use that opportunity to explain how unfair you think the speed limit laws are. It'll give him a good story for the donut shop.

    I don't worry about being stopped. I just follow the police car driving 75-80 mph. It's nice to have a police escort to my destination... ;)

    For those times when there is no police escort - that is why people use radar detectors and CB radios.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    So, since cops do it, it's OK for you? Allow me to laugh..........HA HA HA

    Try that excuse next time you are in court with a traffic ticket !!! Then the judge and the whole courtroom can laugh at you !!!
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Article in Chicago Tribune today says that Bill may come up for vote in Illinois Senate next week to allow speed cameras by municipalities or counties in 8 counties. Six counties are near Chicago, two are downstate. Bill has support of Illinois Secretary of State. If Bill is approved, cameras could start operating next Jan 1. The 8 counties targetted have the highest amount of traffic deaths atributed to speeding. The fine max would be $100 and the ticket for any offense will be mailed to the vehicle owner.

    Vehicle owner is responsible for paying the fine. This makes sense in that vehicle owner is responsible for who they might authorize to use vehicle if not themselves driving it.

    Impeached Democrat Governor Blagoyovich had wanted speed cameras on Illinois intersatates.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    There must be a revenue shortfall in the land of corruption...

    What I mean by that is IL cares about safety!
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    Logic and justice don't always intersect...
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    How about starting at 50 million and going up from there?


    Illinois Plans $50 Million in Statewide Speed Camera Profit

    Illinois governor unveils proposal to line every freeway in the state with speed cameras, generating $50 million in annual revenue.

    Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) held a news conference yesterday announcing his plan to expand dramatically the state's existing freeway speed camera program. Since May 2006, photo ticketing vans operated by Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) have mailed photo tickets from highway construction zones. These tickets carry points, automatic license suspensions and fines of $375 and $1000 for the first and second offense, respectively. Blagojevich wants to start with at least one hundred new cameras spread out on every interstate highway outside the work zones so that the system can raise $50 million in annual profit.

    "This initiative to have speed enforcement cameras is predicated on a two-prong reality," Blagojevich explained. "We want to make our highways safer and then from the revenue we generate from this to hire more police officers, more state troopers."

    The state legislature would have to approve Blagojevich's proposal for $100 freeway photo ticket that do not carry points or require photographs of the driver. These changes would boost both the volume of citations issued and the net revenue, allowing the state to hire 500 new Illinois State Police troopers who, in turn, would issue even more speeding tickets. Ten new state police "elite tactical teams" would focus, among other things, on "traffic activity."

    In the past few years, Illinois has steadily increased its dependence on photo enforcement revenue. Chicago, for example, has generated $72 million in revenue since 2003 from 69 red light cameras. The city recently announced a plan to boost the number to 290. Likewise, at least 83 local communities rushed to install or land a contract to install automated ticketing machines after the legislature granted permission to certain regions of the state.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 54,064
    I wonder what percentage of that ACS was sending directly to Blago :P

    Now that he's history, is his plan going through, will the sheeple of IL be fooled like the sheeple of AZ?
  • vchengvcheng Member Posts: 1,284
    Well, even a small percentage of 50 million dollars is at least a few hundred thousand dollars, or even a million or two. When there is a steady stream of suckers, who has the time to count? Just rake it in and spread it around amongst your friends! :)

    I would be laughing too if the whole thing wasn't so serious and such a travesty.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I was taught that obeying the law is the right thing to do.

    If law officers want to speed, that DOES NOT give EVERYONE ELSE the automatic right to speed legally.

    Just like if you work in a bakery, you are usually free to sample the goods on occasion. That does not make it OK for Joe Public to walk into the kitchen and start chowing down.

    And Speed DOES Kill, and anyone that thinks otherwise is not seeing reality.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    And on your "it's only LOGICAL since the cops do it" statement.

    Start telling all your friends to try that tactic next time they are in speed court.

    Judge: "So you were ticketed 79 in a 65 mph zone, sir, is that correct?"

    LawBreaker: "Yes, your honor."

    Judge: "And you have a valid reason for your excessive speed?"

    LawBreaker: "Yes sir. About five minutes before I got stopped, I was driving beside a Sheriff's car and that car was going the same speed. So from that, I LOGICALLY DEDUCED that driving that fast MUST be OK."

    Judge: "Fine is $180, pay the clerk on your way out. Next case please."
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America I70 & I75 Member Posts: 25,974
    Why do police get those little tags to put on their license plates so other officers know not to stop them. Or they have a little "get out of jail free" card to show that their spouse, son, father, is a policeman.

    I was in a 55 mph construction zone. A large SUV went ripping by (I was going 65) at 70+. Had an FOP tag. Guess who wouldn't get stopped.

    Ohio also is considering putting the money maker kickback cameras in construction zones. Those camera companies are making more money than Obama before innauguration day.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Side benefit of being a cop. "Good Ole' Boy (and girl) Network."

    Still does not make it right.

    Still does not mean that driving faster is safer.
Sign In or Register to comment.