Speed Cameras: I'll have some carrot with that stick, please

It will never happen here. Because the RLC company and the city will lose money. GREED!!!!

But agree that it won't work here.

I am sure lawyers would come up with issues to stop it

I don't see any more concerns about privacy triggered by rewarding people for obeying the law than those triggered by tickets for those who break the law. But I agree with the other two posters, it will never happen here. Red light and speed cameras aren't about traffic safety, they are about generating income for cities. Witness the fact that no effort is made to ticket the person who broke the law, just the person who's car broke the law.

A few years ago, I read this article.

http://boingboing.net/2007/12/18/police-ordered-to-pu.html

I'd prefer not being pulled over, even if it's for a reward.

I can not see a way to logically infer from the stipulated fact that the ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle that cameras are for generating income and not for traffic safety.

I have never seen statistics but I am assuming that the majority of cars ticketed are being driven by one of their owners (husband or wife). If you feel that is not the case, can you cite statistics?

I think that Automated Traffic Enforcement serves both safety and revenue generation purposes. It would be better if munucipalities admitted this.

It's more than just speed, but you can't automate stupidity detection....

So true!

Twix The Boing boing is fine,it' all the vulgarity in the discussions that stinks. I can do without it.

How is issuing a ticket to the owner going to change the behaivor of the driver is the driver isn't the one paying the fine?

Ahh yes, the argument of one who can't defend his position. "Can you cite statistics?" Try to place the burden of proof back on the person with whom you disagree. I can turn that around and ask you, "Can you site statistics that prove the majority of cars ticketed are driven by their owners?"

Actually the number of times it happens or the percent of tickets issued to the wrong person makes no difference. The point of traffic laws and enforcement isn't to generate income, it is to promote safe driving through the use of penalties. Issuing those penalties to the wrong person does NOT achieve this goal.

Quite a few cities have admitted that the goal of automated traffic enforcement is to generate income. Some cities have even admitted that statics prove that red light cameras don't reduce the total number of accidents but do change the type of accidents.

I agree 100% on that! It will never happen. They would have to give some of that money away.

Can't help them for trying to change a behavior. But as I've learned over the years it's easier to teach some new things then to changed a bad behavior(lead foot).

That's very interesting, indeed. And 'out-of-the-box' too, so I like it. We need more thinking like that, imo.

But it can't fly on anything but a very limited basis. Not because of the 'greed' factor (although that's valid in some cases), but because it would demand impractical resources (thought, effort, time, money, etc) on anything but a limited basis.

Think about it- why do we (in general) act more on 'negatives' than 'positives'? Volume vs. resources.

It's only practical on a continuing basis to expend resources on the exceptions (negatives, bad behavior or performance, etc.) than on the rule (positives) especially if your goal is to act on 100% of either.

But, it DOES have a place in some situations, and it's an idea that I might be willing to donate some of my resources (tax money) to.

I don't think they would give up the revenue, either

Oh no! I didn't even look at the comments. I'd delete the link if I could, but I can't. I apologize.