Avoiding Speed Cameras Using GPS Now Illegal In Switzerland
from the location-based-service dept
Over the years, drivers have developed various ways of warning each other about speed traps, such as flashing your brights a couple of times, to let drivers in the oncoming lanes know that there's a police car waiting up ahead. As anti-speeding methods have evolved, so too have the counter measures. To deal with the increasing prevalence of speed surveillance cameras, some GPS devices let drivers know when they're in an area that is monitored by these cameras. Now the Swiss government is fighting back, announcing that several GPS devices are now illegal, because they can be used to help drivers avoid these cameras. It's easy to see other governments following suit, just as radar detectors were roundly banned after they got too popular. Still, it's going to be hard to enforce this ban. While they can ban certain makes of GPS devices, it's going to be tougher to prevent someone from downloading the same application to a GPS-enabled handset that sets of an alarm whenever the car nears a danger zone.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seems to defeat the purpose...
If the purpose of the camera is to make the government money, then you don't want anyone to know about it so you can rack up more fines.
Pathetic, really.
As far as avoiding them, that's probably that locals already do anyway, or they slow down. There was a stretch of highway when I lived in Austria near Graz that had a few and everyone (except Germans) would slow down.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
"Yes the purpose is to slow people down, but not only in speed camera areas. The problem with knowing where the traps are is that people slow down just in those spots and then speed up again afterwards. If one doesn't know where the traps are, then you're more likely to stick to the speed limit."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
There is a very large disconnect in the speeds people drive and the speeds authorities post. Speed cameras are usually used in places where people either speed excessively, or where there have been a lot of accidents. In fact, in most countries, the guidelines for selecting speed camera locations explicitly require both of those things.
Before engaging in ad-hominy attacks, you really should try to understand both sides of the issue.
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
For example, I live at the corner of two residential streets. My house faces your typical 28 foot wide side street. The other street is wider at 38 feet and acts a local collector within the residential area. Both streets have elementary schools and sidewalks. The wider street has two bus routes. Yet, the wider street is posted at 40 km/h and my street is posted at 50 km/h. How many people drive at 40 km/h on the wider street? Not many.
Speed cameras generate revenue. If politicians and the police were really interested in reducing the average speed they would look at redesigning the road (introduce on-street parking, construct roundabouts, reduce lane width, eliminate lanes and replace with bicycle lanes, etc). But that requires spending money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
Its like when a politician does something "for the children". Its just stated to be for that cause so that it will not meet resistance, and the secondary cause (the REAL cause) can be achieved.
In the case of speed traps, automated or not, the REAL desired outcome is additional city/state income. But its all done in the name of "safety".
Won't you please think of the children by lowering taxes for the poor parents by having the "criminal element" in a society pay large fines?
Personally, I am all for large fines for speeding, but the minimums are WAY too low to justify. And if you're not sure of how the speed limits get set (its based on a whole slew of satey factors, right???? WRONG!), take a look at your local jurisdictions zoning laws. Thats right, ZONING laws.
The same body that determines whether or not your neighborhood is "shady" enough to have an in-law suite is allowed to decide how fast vechicles can travel on the nearby secluded and barricaded interstate.
(note: this is the case where I live and I only know about where I live, I know not where you live, and I defintely dont know jack about local regulations where you live)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems to defeat the purpose...
- People are being caused to slow down, which is prevention, rather than punishment (studies show that punishment is not as likely to change behaviour as reinforcement -- here, the cameras are a sort of reinforcement mechanism)
- Government prefers punishment because they profit from it, once again proving that government doesn't -really- give a damn about its citizens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll never catch me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In NY, that signal usually means "turn your damn brights off they're in my face" or "wake up drunkie you're too close to the yellow divider"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how long...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radar and GPS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all for speed traps
Personally I think it's stupid and selfish to speed. It uses more fuel and is far more dangerous -- and not only for the person speeding. Rather just stick to the speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
I found a 'report' in pdf format at Right of Way that talks about 'car violence' in New York City between 1994 and 1997.
On page 44 it states that between 1994 to 1997, 39 children were killed by automobiles. That is 10 children per year in a city with population of 7.2 million in 1996. Tables on pages 26 and 27 show speeding accounting for 11% of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities in 1997. Using this percentage, just over 1 child per year in New York City was killed by a speeder. And this is based on data by an organization that uses the term "car violence".
Speed enforcement should not be required if the road is designed for a predetermined speed limit. You don't build a road for 60 mph, then put a school on it and expect everyone to drive 30 mph. You want slower speeds in school zones? Then design the road so that drivers have to slow down. Narrow the lanes. Use chicanes or speed humps (not bumps). Permit on-street parking. Bring sidewalks right up to the road. Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for speed traps
1 - its a huge revenue driver, esp. in some small towns, this can be their biggest income generator
2 - some people can't actually handle their vehicle at speeds greater (or even at) the limit that is posted, and (gasp dare I say it) shouldn't even be on the road in the first place
There is no logical reasoning for a speed limit to be set at some rediculously low limit so that grandma feels safe on the freeway doing 45. If 55 is so safe on a highway, how about 25... surely there would be NO accidents then right? Get a clue.
And, the next time you advocate some road trap, how about one that catches that woman putting on her makeup, eating a bagel and dealing w/the children, I'm more afraid of her than some person going 10 or 20 miles an hour faster than me who knows how to handle the vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for speed traps
Nice comment. The problem is not speed, it's poor driving skills. People like you probably pass on the right, or sit in the left lane. We are already taxed to death, but yet there you are, bowing down to the government like a submissive wimp. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn Signals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to clarify
Of course the police issue bulletins announcing where the mobile cameras are, but transferring that information into your GPS is illegal, but listening to the same information on the car radio is not !! Apparently it's to do with the GPS being too accurate.
More of a concern is the fact that my GPS has now become illegal by the combination of this law and the upgrade from TomTom that now allows the update of mobile speed camera information via my GSM phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i live here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flashing Your Lights Here....
in Massachusetts means, "I'm driving a more expensive car than you and because I'm a concerned environmentalist and I care more than you, I want that slow polluting hunk of iron outta my way. My Beamer runs better at 95 than at 65". Of course, when they do that to me, I flip on my cruiser's hidden lights and nail their yuppie asses. Oh, I'm a MA State Police officer and drive an unmarked car on the state highways. I love my job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flashing Your Lights Here....
You, and many other officers like you, are the reason people are so rude and uncooperative to police officers now. I can only hope you become a road statistic sooner or later, cop or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flashing Your Lights Here....
All of the posts in the past have talked about how good a driver the poster is. That is irrelevant, you also have to worry about every other driver on the road. Open your eyes, realize that it is great you can drive backward at 200 mph and still be better than me. But when the guy in the lane next to you doing the speed limit moves out to pass the guy not doing it and you are suddenly screwed remember these posts....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flashing Your Lights Here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone complains that a certain speed limit is too low so they will drive 10-15 mph over the posted speed limit, but if the limit were raised by 10-15 mph they would still go 10-15 mph over that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
False. People drive at a speed that they are comfortable with, which for most people is the 85th percentile which translates to between 65 to 75 mph on suburban/rural freeways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All about the $$$
So if the Swiss are punishing people for merely for identifying camera monitored areas, will it soon be illegal to speak to someone regarding these areas too?
Back when I was in college in Austin, Texas, the state police used to have a favorite spot along the highway, screened by some trees, to sit in their cruisers and pick off speeders one at a time. One day, a couple of college students decided to stand on the side of the road about a mile up the highway from the speed trap and hold up a sign saying "Police ahead, slow down." Well, you can imagine what happened. They were arrested for obstruction of justice. However, the Texas Court of Appeals eventually ruled that the kids holding the sign were only encouraging people to obey the law and doing that can never be considered obstruction of justice. They also said that the arrest was a violation of their 1st Amendment right to free speech.
Bottom line: the state will tolerate a lot but the minute you start to threaten their revenue stream, they'll come down on you like the wrath of god.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All about the $$$
Then I guess #14 up there needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greedy Pigs
There's been a few cases of people getting fines for this i believe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Road safety or Revenue? You decide...
If not, and it is all about revenue, then this is a tax; last time I looked, tax avoidance was not a crime.
The only way that I can think of to really settle the argument as to which case applies would be to ensure that the proceeds of the "crime" do not find their way to the folks giving out the tickets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm all for speed traps
FYI - I do pass on the right and sit in the left and here it's the right thing to do. And there is no way that it's an income generating machine -- the fines are simply too low here and many people don't pay their fines. So the system here is completely broken. However, they will be implementing a points system soon that will mean people lose their licenses after a certain number of offenses and I think that'll be great.
Anyway, I think most people just disobey the speed laws for the sake of disobeying them. Sticking it to the man. It's a childish attitude and I'm sure that if most people grow up they'd realise it and just do the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
yeah, next you'll say I speed cause my mommy didn't hug me enough. People don't speed to stick it to anyone moron... its to get where we are going in a reasonable amount of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
Yes, that is exactly what I am thinking when travelling on the portion of Highway 401 between Windsor and Tilbury here in southwestern Ontario, Canada.
You see this part of the 401 is flat and relatively straight. Most of it was recently widened to three lanes with a concrete media and paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 100 km/h or 62 mph. A more reasonable speed limit is 120 km/h or 75 mph. And the majority of drives travel between 115 to 125 km/h because that is the 85th percentile speed not because they are sticking it to the man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
BTW, by doing the things you state, e.g. staying on the left at the limit and passing on the right, you are a very dangerous driver, unless you live in the UK, Australia or Japan.
It's speed differential and unpredictability that kills, not speed itself. Germany, with no speed limits on some stretches of road, has the lowest accident rate per mile, while the US, with some of the lowest average speed limits, has one of the highest.
What's the difference? Well, for one, people don't behave like you. They are very disciplined and predictable (e.g. slow cars on the right, passing only on the left, etc).
Chris.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"people lose their licenses after a certain number of offenses and I think that'll be great."
you faggit... learn to drive ang get the fuck out my way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
.. ya, you should defiantly worry about stopping yourself before anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm all for speed traps
I love it when people do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bit hot in here init?
Personally I can see both sides - those who are posting that 65mph is far too slow for a freeway but also those who state that speed cameras are supposed to be there for the public good
My problem with the cameras is exactly what people are stating, that the way they are used in my local area (i'm in the UK incidentally) they certainly seem to be used as revenue generators rather than safety enhancements - none anywhere near schools and all on pedestrian free dual carridgeways (which have also had their speed limits correspondingly dropped recently)
Fact is though that the cameras are supposed to be there to enforce the law full stop - go 1mph over the law and you are breaking it, I don't like it either but its true. A sensible system usually allows for a bit off leeway (unlike the granny getting busted for a $50 gambling ring) but you own the system, if you don't like it lobby and change it - the problem isn't the cameras themselves, its overly restrictive speed limits in inappropriate areas and the mindset of the civil servants placing them.
Change the limits and fire the civil servants
Fact is speed kills, the faster a car is going when it hits you the more likly you will die - the liklyhood incidentally is exponential for the speed
So keep the limit low in residential areas and outside schools etc but raise them elsewhere
I actually agree with the ban however for other reasons - why should some yuppie who can afford to shell out a few hundred $ be effectivly allowed to circumvent the law? The other problem is from my experience the owners of these systems tend to try to keep their journey times the same as before and they do this by slowing down at the cameras then speeding up even more than before when they are past them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bit hot in here init?
> is exactly what people are stating,
> that the way they are used in my
> local area (i'm in the UK incidentally)
> they certainly seem to be used as
> revenue generators rather than
> safety enhancements
Another problem with the cameras (at least the way they are operated in Washington DC) is that you don't get your ticket in the mail until about a month after the violation occurs. Unlike being pulled over by an actual cop, where the mitigating factors are fresh in your mind, you now have to think back over 30 days just to try and remember why you were on that road in the first place.
Also, by delaying the delivery of the ticket for a month or more, the state knows that the driver probably doesn't even realize there's a camera there and if it's a route they travel regularly, they could conceivably end up being ticketed 60 to 70 times before the first one even shows up in the mailbox. This leads to massive revenue windfalls for the government and at the same time can effectively bankrupt a person when $500 to $1000 in fines suddenly drop into their mailbox all at once.
> Fact is speed kills
Speed doesn't kill. Differential speed kills. If everyone is moving at roughly the same speed, then safety increases. It's when one person drives 40 MPH on the highway and another is driving 80 MPH that problems arise. Traffic is a fluid dynamic like any other. A fast-moving river is nevertheless calm so long as all the water is flowing at the same speed. Once you throw some rocks into the mix causes some water to flow faster than others in places, you get violent rapids-- the equivalent of a traffic backup or car crash.
> I actually agree with the ban however
> for other reasons - why should some
> yuppie who can afford to shell out a few
> hundred $ be effectivly allowed to
> circumvent the law?
But he's not circumventing the law by slowing down when he knows a camera is present. Or he's at least circumventing it less than he would otherwise. Your statement assumes that the law requires people to speed past these cameras and be fined. It does not. By slowing for the cameras, he's at least obeying the law where the cameras are, even if he speeds up again between them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bit hot in here init?
That sucks - In the UK there is a period where if they haven't got the ticket out to you they have to retract it (can't remember it exactly) - apart from anything else so that you have a chance to remember who was driving
Speed doesn't kill. Differential speed kills
True but if you are travelling at 65mph your differential speed to that lamp post or pedestrian is 65mph, and 130mph compared to a car travelling in the opposite direction. No you aren't going to aim for them but in a crash cars are nudged into them all the time
It's when one person drives 40 MPH on the highway and another is driving 80 MPH that problems arise
Couldn't agree more - I've nearly wiped out trying to overtake after merging into a motorway and realising at the last minute that the car in the middle lane is actually only doing 20mph, in my book this constitutes dangerous driving and should also be against the law although this would probably take a human being to enforce...
But he's not circumventing the law by slowing down when he knows a camera is present. Or he's at least circumventing it less than he would otherwise. Your statement assumes that the law requires people to speed past these cameras and be fined. It does not. By slowing for the cameras, he's at least obeying the law where the cameras are, even if he speeds up again between them.
Sorry perhaps a better way to put this would have been he is allowed to break the law with relative impunity. OK the law is not being broken at the exact moment he passes the camera but it allows him to break it relatively safely for the rest of the journey, and like I say people seem to speed up between the cameras a lot more when they do this, which definitely disrupts the fluid dynamic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bit hot in here init?
> at the exact moment he passes
> the camera but it allows him to break
> it relatively safely for the rest of the
> journey, and like I say people seem
> to speed up between the cameras
> a lot more when they do this, which
> definitely disrupts the fluid dynamic
Which is exactly why these cameras make things *more* dangerous, not less. In Washington DC it was recently reported that the accident rate along one stretch of New York Avenue where a speed camera has been operating has increased since the camera was installed, not decreased. The reason? Because all the commuters who drive the route daily know about the camera and routinely hit their brakes as soon as they get to that stretch of road. And the other drivers who don't know about the camera are suddenly caught by surprise as traffic speed drops 20 MPH and accidents ensue.
Faced with the almost indisputable evidence that the camera is making things more dangerous for drivers and not less, the Washington DC government, not surprisingly, chose to do nothing and leave the camera in place. Why? Because the camera generates millions of dollars in revenue per year for the city and that's the *real* reason it's there. All the talk about "safety" and "concern for children" is nothing but flowery rhetoric design to mask a crass money-grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bit hot in here init?
They encourage the very brake slamming behaviour you are on about
In general though I still think the "I had to slam my brakes on to obey that pesky law" excuse is a bit weak. Either you're driving too fast or the limit needs to be changed
Problem is that would require a bit more effort than plugging in a GPS and slamming on the breaks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bit hot in here init?
> the "I had to slam my brakes
> on to obey that pesky law"
> excuse is a bit weak.
It's not an excuse. It's a reality. It's what people will do no matter what you or anyone else thinks they *should* do in a perfect world. Wishing for a world in which everyone drove slowly everywhere instead of only in the camera zones is like wishing for world peace. Nice fantasy but that's all it is: fantasy.
And once you accept the reality of the situation, you'll see that many (if not all) of these cameras actually make the roads more dangerous. The empirical data sure supports that conclusion. So if safety is the reason for the cameras (as all the politicians tell us it is when they're hyping them), then the cameras should be removed in the name of making the roads safer.
Of course we all know that safety *isn't* the reason for the cameras. It's a bald-faced lie told to us to make us feel better about their new and exciting tax scheme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bit hot in here init?
Read the previous posts - I am not *for* cameras, I am just *against* GPS and speeders in the first place
If you feel you have to speed on a certain stretch of road then the limit is too low. The limit is imposed by your society *which you are a member of*
I'll wait.....
So if you don't like the limit the answer is to change it, to lobby and have it altered. This goes for any law or limit imposed on you by your government, they are *your* government and they work for *you*. So the answer is to change the law to something more reasonable, not to just feel free to break it and not expect anything in return
You may find you get support and the limit changes, you may find an unexpected number of people are happy with it - if this happens, tough. Its one of the downsides of living in a democratic society
If you then continue to speed then again, tough, you are breaking the law and any device sold to assist you in this is wrong
The argument "I have to suddenly slow down to obey the law and this causes accidents", is akin to a bank robber saying "I wouldn't have accidentally run over that kid if the cops hadn't got to the bank so fast". Its still *your fault* you, not the camera and not the fast cop, you were breaking the law and to avoid a penalty you had to perform an act which brought someone else into danger
So in conclusion my answer is if you don't like a law, change it and if you can't change it and hate it enough MOVE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving ridiculously slow, such as below the posted speed or nonsensically "safe" is far more annoying. Really though, driving is still considered a privilege. It should be enforced as such not only with people who abuse the limits in excess, but also those who neglect them through deficiency (unfit to drive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP WHINING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On percentiles and differentials
I've been thinking about some of the other arguments on here that the pro-speed camp is making. Essentially the 85 percentile and the speed differential argument. So the 85 percentile thing says that the limit is set based on what 85 percent of the population finds to be a comfortable speed to drive at right? So presumably none of those 85% of the population are speeders, meaning that 15% of the population are the only potential speeders. Also, I doubt that they're all speeding, meaning that it's even a smaller percentage that are currently breaking the law. Raising the speed limit will then result in only more of that 15% driving faster, while the remaining 85% will stay at or below the old speed limit, because that is what they're comfortable driving at right? The end result of this is that there will be more speed differential on the road -- thus more dangerous right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Road Statistics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On Road Statistics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On Road Statistics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"speed cameras"money exercise or life saver?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]