Arizona reports that the speed cameras should have produced 127 million dollars in speeding fine revenues but only $36.8 million in fines have been paid so far.
I love it.
First of all, IMO speed limits should be set scientifically - unfortunately for the most part they are set arbitrarily, lower than the engineered road speed, making a mockery out of the artificially low speed limits;
If they would have adaptive speed limits it would make more sense, because they could ticket the top couple of percent of drivers because they would be driving at unsafe speeds relative to the prevailing traffic.
The reality is that it is far more dangerous to have drivers stomp on their brakes to slow for speed cams than it is for free flowing traffic to be rolling smoothly at 15 or even 20 over the posted limit - as long as the road supports the rate of travel and everyone is rolling at those speeds.
The Montana experiment proved conclusively that fixed speed limits are not required.
So that's why our state doesn't have enough money (read sarcasm.) What did they expect? The ticket has no teeth except the fine and violators figure "why not?" and avoid the process server. Maybe Brewer should have had a Black Friday sale and offered 50% off of photo fines for Christmas. Or maybe they should sell photo enforcement fine gift cards to give your lead footed loved ones for the holidays.
Better hope that you don't get stopped if you have un-paid tickets-- many places will take you right to jail.
I drove through AZ this year and could not believe how many Speed cameras they had. I assume CA will have them some day, and the fines will be astronomical. Just a Red Light Camera ticket is $450 here.
Did the Montana experiment cover any densely populated urban areas? I don't know enough about it to say, but I'd suspect what worked for Montana wouldn't work for NYC.
My comment was made in the context of the experience in Arizona, which has most of their cameras on highways, often set a mile apart.
New York, and other major metropolitan areas are mainly using cameras to enforce red lights . . and as long as they don't mess with yellow light timing or otherwise engage in entrapment, I peronally have no significant 'issues' with those.
Heck, I live in Montreal - they are in the process of lowering the general speed limit from 30 mph to 24 - and that is simply stupid because it is purportdly a safety issue. We will all 'drive slower'.
Well, perhaps many of the very small minority who drove at 30 will drive at 24, but those that used to speed will continue to speed. They'lll simply be exceeding the speed limit by a larger margin.
So aside from burning more fuel and having a larger proportion of the population exceed the speed limit (because, while 24 mph may be fine for a small village, when you have a city that is spread across a couple of hundred square miles, 24 mph simply is not practical) they'll have more ticketing opportunities.
It is all about the revenue.
I think speed cameras should be removed.
There is some very interesting information here.
Canadian common sense
This recent Canadian report (Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia) has a clear view of the role of speed limits and speed enforcement. (home page) (actual report)
We'd rate this as a "must read", and it includes such straight forward common sense items as:
* The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions. Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists.
* The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
* A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.
In the NY Times article linked above:
Some of the people who got those tickets are contesting them in court and could end up having to pay the fine, but many of them have gone unpaid because drivers know they have a good shot at getting away with ignoring them. When people get tickets, they can pay without question, request a court date and fight the ticket, or simply ignore the ticket because law enforcement cannot prove they received it. The ticket becomes invalid if a violator who ignores it is not served in person within three months. It is nearly impossible to say how many people have ignored their tickets because courts do not track the figure.
This "three month rule" is that applicable in other states besides AZ? Just ignore it and it will go away? That could be VERY interesting.
slowing they are taking AWAY OUR FREEDOM !
There is something called "alternate service" now where if a processor tries 3 times, and leaves a notice everytime, and no one answers, a judge can deem that sufficient as proof for delivery.
So not a good idea to get these tickets.
Exactly the same article I posted at the top of the thread.
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2019