Speed cameras=revenue raisers?

[fireheart17]

OK, I'll put this out there as a general one.

Basically, I'm talking speed cameras without a cop, radars with or without a cop, red light cameras and so forth. Do they seem like they're just raising revenue? Or do you think they're worth it?

[BroomJockey]

I think most of the time it's just an idiot tax. Most red light cameras and photo radar aren't exactly subtle, so you're usually pretty dumb to be tagged by them. Manned radar stations aren't revenue raisers, since most times there's two officers sitting around, so you're not going to make a profit no matter how many tickets you hand out.

[Boozy]

They had unmanned photo radar speed traps on the major highways years ago here in Ontario, but public outrage made them discontinue the program.

I don't like the idea of them. There's no reason for Big Brother to be watching us with cameras.

[crazylegs]

I'm a fan of speed cameras.

Let me retype that in case you think it was a typo.

I'm a fan of speed cameras.

They enforce the law, they allow the law to be enforced on roads that have been proven to be dangerous (in the UK there has to be x number of fatal/serious incidents before they can be installed).

Why should the law not be enforced, and why should be people be outraged that it is?

I'm a particular fan of average speed cameras, it is so pleasant to drive along the motorway at 70 and not have some prat right up my arse because he thinks the law doesn't apply to them.

The cameras are not revenue makers, the UK government makes very little money from them as profit, the majority goes back into local council funding for road improvements.

Lets be honest, the only way that you'll be caught by them is if you're speeding/go through a red light, so don't do either.

[BroomJockey]

Why should the law not be enforced, and why should be people be outraged that it is?
<snip>
Lets be honest, the only way that you'll be caught by them is if you're speeding/go through a red light, so don't do either.

The outrage is supposed to be partly a camera has no sense of judgement, so that if there's an emergency, you still get a ticket, if you loan your car to your brother, you still get the ticket, etc.

As for the "only" way, I've read a few stories that people tend to latch on to about how you'll get flashed if you're making a right (left for you) on red, which is legal, but the camera registers as running a red, or cameras being purposefully "miscalibrated," so there used to be legitimate reasons, but they've fixed that, to the best of my knowledge. But, people still trot it out.

[DrFaroohk]

It sounds like a good idea. You have a piece of road where twenty people die every year, you put a camera there, make it obvious, after a few tickets go out word gets around and people start going slower on that piece of road out of habit, and hopefully not as many people die.

I suppose it can be abused later on down the road, though, but even then what they gonna do with? Look at you driving for a half a second?

Of course, if I had access to one of those things it'd be great for keeping track of people. "Hey, who's that guy in the car with my wife!?!" lol...

[Nyoibo]

Manned radar stations aren't revenue raisers, since most times there's two officers sitting around, so you're not going to make a profit no matter how many tickets you hand out.

They are here, there's only 1 cop and speeding fines start at around $200.

That said, I have no problem with them, as I said earlier to a friend my response to people bitching about getting speeding fines is to quote Jim Carey "Stop breaking the law asshole"

[crazylegs]

The outrage is supposed to be partly a camera has no sense of judgement, so that if there's an emergency, you still get a ticket, if you loan your car to your brother, you still get the ticket, etc.

Right, if there is an emergency the law still applies, if you're in fear of your life (for example) you still have the opportunity to attend court and defend your position, however the law is there - you have been tested on it and you've proven you know it (which is how you have your licence). If you subsequently choose to ignore that law then you should accept the consequences.

I don't know how it works over there, but when you receive a ticket here you are lawfully obliged to declare who was driving, so if it was your brother you have to tell the court that, and he takes responsibility for his actions.

As for the "only" way, I've read a few stories that people tend to latch on to about how you'll get flashed if you're making a right (left for you) on red, which is legal, but the camera registers as running a red, or cameras being purposefully "miscalibrated," so there used to be legitimate reasons, but they've fixed that, to the best of my knowledge. But, people still trot it out.

Ah, we don't have the 'you can turn x direction if the light shows red' thing here, so you don't cross the line at all when the light is red, so no excuse here I'm afraid (although a legitimate concern for those who can, that I will admit).

Of course, if I had access to one of those things it'd be great for keeping track of people. "Hey, who's that guy in the car with my wife!?!" lol...

How? A Gatso type camera only takes a photo if you're speeding... it doesn't constantly run.

[Pedersen]

The cameras are not revenue makers, the UK government makes very little money from them as profit, the majority goes back into local council funding for road improvements.

Ah, yes, since profit is what is being discussed, and not revenue. Wait, what's that, the title of the thread and the OP discuss actual revenue, and not profit? That's just crazy talk.

Because, if that's what they discussed, then you would have just proven their point: Cameras are used to increase revenue for the government to use on whatever projects they choose.

Lets be honest, the only way that you'll be caught by them is if you're speeding/go through a red light, so don't do either.

Speeding: Maybe. Red light cameras, though, are abused. See below.

As for the "only" way, I've read a few stories that people tend to latch on to about how you'll get flashed if you're making a right (left for you) on red, which is legal, but the camera registers as running a red, or cameras being purposefully "miscalibrated," so there used to be legitimate reasons, but they've fixed that, to the best of my knowledge. But, people still trot it out.

Now, I wonder why we would trot out the examples of cities purposefully reducing yellow light timings in an effort to raise revenue? It's not like it's been happening even within the past few months, is it?

The part that amazes is that Mississippi, of all places, has had the intelligence to ban these things.

[BroomJockey]

Right, if there is an emergency the law still applies, if you're in fear of your life (for example) you still have the opportunity to attend court and defend your position, however the law is there - you have been tested on it and you've proven you know it (which is how you have your licence). If you subsequently choose to ignore that law then you should accept the consequences.

I don't know how it works over there, but when you receive a ticket here you are lawfully obliged to declare who was driving, so if it was your brother you have to tell the court that, and he takes responsibility for his actions.

Yeah, here, the photo ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, and they don't give a fuck who was driving, it's the responsibility of the owner. That's crap.

And photo tickets usually can't be appealed. Which is also crap. And by "emergency" I mean, someone's in need of getting to the hospital-type thing. I'm sorry, but when the choice is "speed" or "die," I'll pick "speed" and anyone who thinks I should get a ticket for that needs to seriously examine their morality. And yes, there's circumstances where it's better to drive a person rather than wait for an ambulance.

[Fashion Lad!]

Red light cameras = an increase in traffic accidents.

Yay! 5 Studies

More studies!!!

Even more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm excited!

They are purely for revenue. Why else would they install something that has shown to have a negative effect in traffic accidents? The government does not care about you beyond what you can contribute financially to them.

Some people are running a red light because if they were to slam on the brakes, the person behind them would have no time to stop and rear end them. Awesome. Sometimes, the person is just blatantly breaking the law. But, who doesn't? And if you're running a red light to avoid an accident, why get punished?

[BroomJockey]

Now, I wonder why we would trot out the examples of cities purposefully reducing yellow light timings in an effort to raise revenue? It's not like it's been happening even within the past few months, is it?

Hey, improved knowledge. Since, you know, I did say "to the best of my knowledge" and all.

Some people are running a red light because if they were to slam on the brakes, the person behind them would have no time to stop and rear end them.

That's called "following too close," and blaming one traffic violation on another one is a poor argument.

[crazylegs]

Because, if that's what they discussed, then you would have just proven their point: Cameras are used to increase revenue for the government to use on whatever projects they choose.

oops, my bad - I'm rather used to the profit aspect, I shall re-answer.

The law is enforced on a number of things, unruly behaviour, criminal damage, sale of age restricted goods to minors. Nobody here has objections to the state collecting fines for these offences, and a vast amount is. However these fines are not ring fenced in any way, the money goes straight back into the public purse to be spent on whatever the hell the government wants. The money from enforcing traffic legislation is put back into road safety - therefore the people who are paying for your road improvements are those who need it the most, anti darwinism for sure but that's how it is. Thing is the law will always be enforced, and I'd much rather the fines for any offence go back to solve the problem in the first place, but its only traffic offences that this happens.

Yeah, here, the photo ticket goes to the owner of the vehicle, and they don't give a fuck who was driving, it's the responsibility of the owner. That's crap.

Yep, it absolutely is.

And photo tickets usually can't be appealed. Which is also crap.

Yep, it absolutely is, surely that is conviction without the right of appeal?

And by "emergency" I mean, someone's in need of getting to the hospital-type thing. I'm sorry, but when the choice is "speed" or "die," I'll pick "speed" and anyone who thinks I should get a ticket for that needs to seriously examine their morality. And yes, there's circumstances where it's better to drive a person rather than wait for an ambulance.

Really? So your car has all the appropriate appliances on board to support life, such as Oxygen, Defib, adrenaline, glucogen, broad spectrum antibiotics? It also has an appropriate appliance for the carriage of an unconcious person and an appropriate restraint system, and appropriate measures for maintaining their airway then? I'm assuming you also have the appropriate warning sytems (lights/sirens) so that you can alert drivers and pedestrians (especially those with awareness impairments) to the urgentness of your journey? Are you suitably trained in driving a vehicle at speed?

No?

Thought not.

Wait for an ambulance.

[DrFaroohk]

Sometimes not even the ambulance has EVERYTHING a person needs to live. Sometimes its just a matter of time. You have 30 minutes to get to the hospital or your loved one is going to die. It's a 20 minute drive to the hospital. The ambulance has to travel 20 minutes to get to you, another couple of minutes loading you up and then race you back to the hospital - 40 minutes, at least. Your loved one just died. If you had driven them yourself they'd still be alive and you wouldn't feel so guilty.

[AdminAssistant]

Not only that, but ambulances are freakin' expensive.

Put it in a non-life/death scenario. I just broke my arm. I'm in extreme pain. I'm supposed to call 911 and wait for an ambulance to take me? Or have a friend take me and drive with haste because I'm in pain. I'm not talking go 90 mph down a city street or run all the red lights - I mean, going somewhat faster than the natural flow of traffic.

Besides, over here in many communities ambulances are simply not that accessible. Some people live over an hour away from a decent hospital.

I'm not a fan of speed cameras or red light cameras. If they were really concerned about safety (and not generating revenue), they'd pay for an actual human being to be stationed there to pull people over.