VW "speed camera lottery" experiment rewards drivers who obey speed laws

[Arragonis]

They also have unfortunate side effects such as a reduction in traffic police - some forces in the UK don't even have a 'Traffic Section' any more - they only think that road safety is speed based and rely on cameras. In fact I have driven from Scotland to England and back (round trip 600 miles) without seeing a single police car, but at the same time I have seen speed cameras and camera vans.

Its stupid.

I can drive with relative safety on an empty motorway in good weather at 80 mph plus - the limit is 70. In fact I have and have been passed and ignored by police cars going faster.

I can also drive very dangerously at 50 and never trigger a camera at all. And because there are far fewer traffic cops than there used to be, I would probably get away with it these days.

We have cameras to catch all sorts of things here - people stopping across junctions in traffic, using (usually empty) bus lanes and even parking for too long.

The scary aspect is that all of these 'incidents' create an entry on a database somewhere - with a reg plate, a date and a time. A reg plate has a registered keeper - so you can have a person, a date and a time.

Who says we aren't being watched...

[endurance]

While I don't like government intrusion any more than the next guy and really don't like TSA handling more packages that the USPS, I find it ironic that most folks in my age cohort can't imagine leaving the house without updating Twitter or Facebook. Sometimes, we're our own worst enemy. Beyond that, who uses cash anymore? Nobody, which means your bank knows more about your spending habits than your spouse. We surrendered privacy long ago in the name of convenience and expediency.

Truckers (Lorry drivers) already get fines for speeding when they cover a given distance at too great an average speed; it's only a matter of time before the rest of us fall into lockstep.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by euromodder

They are unnecessary and solve nothing - regardless of what politicians claim.

Point taken. However, this certainly never stops the US government from implementing something.

Originally Posted by euromodder

What camera detects seatbelt usage

Actually, the resolution on an automated camera photo that caught my wife last year was more than sufficient to determine that she was wearing her seatbelt. Of course this isn't an automated check, but it would be trivial for an officer to inspect photos of egregious speeders.

Moreover, I think it is entirely likely that cars will have black boxes eventually. You can bet one data point will be the engagement of the seatbelt. If I were an auto insurer, I would be looking forward to this with relish.

[Arragonis]

The system is only as good as the equipment and the people running it.

For the equipment, we have the Lti 20:20 - This has been questioned quite a few times. However you are not allowed to challenge their use in a UK court, or indeed challenge their accuracy.

Secondly its the people. Personal case - I got caught last year. I received two tickets for the same offence. Hands up, I did it. But 2 tickets ? They were for the same offence in the same place but 25 minutes apart. When I queried it the conversation went as follows :

Me : I have 2 tickets for the same time ?

Then : Ah, yes, we spotted that one but it was too late it went out in the post. Ignore the second one.

Me : OK, so were you going to tell me ?

Them : No.

Me : OK, can you put this in writing (* note if you don't 'reply' in 28 days in the UK that is also an offence) ?

Them : No.

So basically if I hadn't checked, and quite a few people don't, then I would have had 2x the offences to face. And I was put in the position of having no proof of the conversation above (which was over the phone) if the second ticket hadn't been cancelled.

Thing is this I would have been (reasonably) happy to admit my guilt. I did it. Fair cop. But this turned me from a supporter to an opposer of this nonsense.

This is worth a read for anyone interested in road safety.

Published in 1969, Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish? is one of the most important books ever written about road safety, and should be compulsory reading for everyone involved in the formulation of road safety policy. Although it was written nearly thirty-five years ago, the attitudes and prejudices J.J.Leeming describes are not only still with us, they have become even more entrenched.

John Leeming was County Surveyor of Dorset and was a firm believer that road accidents could be reduced by a scientific and dispassionate analysis of their causes. He was strongly opposed to the view that accidents are caused by the wilful misdeeds of drivers, who must therefore be punished for their 'crimes'. Indeed, he pointed out that this blame culture leads to drivers being reluctant to talk openly about their actions to accident investigators for fear of prosecution, with the result that the true contributory factors may never be established. Further accidents will continue to occur, therefore, which might otherwise have been prevented — hence the title of his book. His frustration is summed up in the dedication to his work:

'This book is dedicated to the countless thousands who have died on the roads of the world as a result of the prejudices of a minority, as some reparation and in the faint hope that it may induce some government, somewhere, to begin trying to stop accidents.'

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Toby

However, this certainly never stops the US government from implementing something.

They're excellent at generating more revenue.
If not, lower the speed limit.

That's how it's being done over here.
Revenue is skyrocketing, and reductions in road casualties get attributed to the camera's.
Note the contradiction

Actually, the resolution on an automated camera photo that caught my wife last year was more than sufficient to determine that she was wearing her seatbelt.

Camera's could easily be used for that - or at least to verify wether someone was wearing their seatbelt or not, as it's not always that obvious.
But they aren't used for that purpose.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The system is only as good as the equipment and the people running it.

For the equipment, we have the Lti 20:20 - This has been questioned quite a few times. However you are not allowed to challenge their use in a UK court, or indeed challenge their accuracy.

Handheld speedguns or moving (i.e. while on the move) speedcameras aren't even approved in Belgium based on accuracy issues with them.

A lot of the fixed radar cameras were found to be suffering from secondary reflections causing erronous speed recordings and have had to be updated - despite being previously approved at the location.

If the reading is really silly, like 400mph (yes, it happened !) , the errors are obvious.
If the resulting error wasn't so silly, people were prosecuted.

[jmf]

Why are so many people affraid of being "watched". I thought as americans we thought that it was safer to give up our freedom? If you carry a cell phone someone knows where you are. Mostly if you are following the rules no one is going to notice you.

[Arragonis]

Cameras won't be used for belts, they will only be used for things they can do automatically. Anything else needs a real person, who needs a real pay packet.

That cuts into the profit margin.

EDIT - just in case you think I'm in sarc mode, I'm serious. One of the criteria for the positioning of speed cameras in the UK is the return on the investment.

[Jim-Bob]

Originally Posted by jmf

Why are so many people affraid of being "watched". I thought as americans we thought that it was safer to give up our freedom? If you carry a cell phone someone knows where you are. Mostly if you are following the rules no one is going to notice you.

This is a VERY dangerous attitude to have. The framers of the Constitution realized the need to maintain a wall of separation between the public and the government to prevent abuse. This includes fishing expeditions where government officials can use their office to harass people and try to find a reason to arrest them. Imagine, if you will, that every single day the police were sent to search your house. You have nothing to hide, right? Suppose though that a police officer mistook something they found for evidence of a crime. You now have to take time out of your day and spend money on legal representation in order to clear your name. Innocence does not mean that you will not suffer because of it. No, the wall of separation MUST be maintained in order to maintain some sense of freedom and privacy in one's own life. I do not choose to use social networks like Twitter or Facebook to publish the details of my daily life so I see no reason why I would want to involuntarily make them accessible to government officials of unknown intent.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by jmf

Why are so many people affraid of being "watched". I thought as americans we thought that it was safer to give up our freedom? If you carry a cell phone someone knows where you are. Mostly if you are following the rules no one is going to notice you.

Thank you for your support and for complying. your IP address and the name attached has been noted, and you will be passed over during the first purging. Good health to you comrade.

I can chose not to have a cell phone, I should not have to chose to stay in my house or be viewed by an autonomous system or the bureaucrats that run it.