Texas Looking To Ban Speed Cameras?
from the making-the-roads-richer,-not-safer dept
There are all sorts of problems with things like speed cameras and red light cameras, starting with technical problems and moving on to the more serious questions about whether or not they make the roads any safer. Since they're usually offered in combination with private companies who receive a large percentage of the fines, it's often pointed out that these cameras are more about making private companies and government coffers money, rather than any real attempt at increasing safety. Still, they've only become more and more popular recently, with a new speed camera catching over a thousand speeders in a single day. However, it looks like Texas may actually be heading in the other direction. Jeff Nolan points us to the news that Texas lawmakers have approved a ban on speed cameras. The law also requires signs warning about red light cameras -- though, it's unclear if that will help, since studies have shown red light cameras often increase accidents, as drivers are more likely to slam on their brakes.
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
Banned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safer intersections
To make an intersection safer, yellow/amber needs to be increased to a minimum of 3 seconds plus an additional factor based on a distance/speed calculation 50% over the posted limit. There also needs to be a two-second delay between one direction's red and an intersecting direction's green. It doesn't stop the runners but it does increase the safety of the intersection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safer intersections
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human Nature
Why not? because there are a lot of motorists who will take whatever liberties you give them, and then some.
When I learned to drive, I was taught that Amber means "STOP if it is safe to do so". Now it means "FLOOR IT!!!"
If you increase the "grace period" you simply increase the number of people who would take advantage of it, the speed at which they will "shoot the lights"... and the severity of the accident that will happen if they hit someone. This is not theory, this is the world I see around me every day.
If it were up to me, I would mount a "Amber-means-STOP" public awareness campaign and get rid of that "your-red-to-my-green" gap entirely.
But I am not a traffic engineer; just a guilty bystander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it's really not that much of a pain to just keep it at the speed limit and stop for lights. It may take a little time, but anything beats paying the government more money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nevada
The reality of the situation is red light running is dangerous, but in order to lower the required legal evidence for conviction (aka a private company can collect the fine, no proof you were driving, just the owner of the car gets the ticket), governments change red light running to the level of a parking violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about the money
People would love to point at anything other then the drivers ineptitude as the reason for a crash. The reality is , more often then not when a police report is filed that states "excessive speed" as the cause of a crash, it really means they don't know what happened but they think the participants were over the speed limit.
I know in our local area consider speeding tickets nothing more the random taxation. They do nothing to curb the hazards of the road and they increase the number of people unnecessarily breaking or changing lanes when they see a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all about the money
"Excessive speed" is listed in many cases for the same reason: to build a case for increased police funding. "Excessive speed" really means that if the vehicle had not been moving at the time then the accident probably would not have occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed Camera use in Australia
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/3C6D1AAD1683 6ED0CA25723600056D67?opendocument
As the figures show, most state governments have been successful at control and in many cases decreases road deaths and accidents even while the number of registered road users have increased. Interestingly (although not conclusively) Victoria, the state which most heavily utilises speed cameras, has been the most effective. As an a side, Victoria is the first state to equip all Police vehicles with alcohol breath test units as well as provide illicit drug saliva swab kits to the dedicated police "Booze Buses".
It's worth pointing out that speed cameras are:
a) Only a part of the solutions.
b) Run by the Police.
c) Most affective when used as a deterrent to speeding.
Being run by the state Police forces controls the misuse of speed cameras for blatant commercial profit. Effective use as a deterrent requires that mobile speed cameras (mounted on vehicles), portable speed cameras (hand held speed guns and portable speed traps) as well as fixed speed cameras need to be used and no signage or warning of their imminent use is provided to motorists. The following link illustrates some of the other aspect of the road fatality management programs used.
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/088FE289-64D0-442A-B2F6-0B088CFA147D/0/ann_rep0 506_roadsafety.pdf
I'll admit that none of the evidence here is conclusive that speed cameras work. Further, I'm comfortable in stating that most Australians dislike speed cameras even though they will grudgingly accept that they have been effective. However, the experience here does indicate that speed cameras can be used effectively to curb road deaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't make us any safer, the stats show, but heck, if it means they won't increase taxes just yet they might be worth it.
*This post was scanned by the British Big Brother organization, keeping you safe and controlled since 1997*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving SLOW kills more people than driving FAST
So how many lives are wasted driving on motorways and how many fewer lives are wasted if you drive faster?
So do the maths, here's the UK numbers for motorways.
The Data
--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
2 deaths per billion KMs of motorway.
23% of miles are on motorways.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=24
7208 average miles per person per year. Mostly car and bus.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=952
512,993 deaths in UK per year.
If Speed Limit is 70mph
-----------------------
7208 miles driven
23% Driven on motorways
1657.84 miles driven on motorway each year
70 mph speed limit
23.68342857 hour driving a year on motorways yearly
50 years spent driving
1184.171429 hours spent driving per lifetime
49.34047619 Days spent driving
512,993 Deaths per year
69346.07918 Lives wasted driving
If Speed Limit is 90mph
-----------------------
90 mph speed limie
18.42044444 hours spent driving each year on motorways
50 year spent driving
921.0222222 hours spent driving on a motorway in lifetime on motorways
38.37592593 Days spend driving in a lifetime on motorways
512,993 Deaths per year
53935.83937 Lives wasted driving
Conclusion
----------
15410.23982 Lives not wasted driving if limit increased from 70 to 90mph.
Deaths From Speeding
--------------------
Yeh, OK, so I'm comparing apples and oranges, deaths and lives wasted are not exactly the same. Fair enough.
But how many deaths are there on the UK motorways each year from speeding and alcohol and accidents?
2 Deaths per billion km driven
1.24274238 deaths per billion miles driven
1657.84 driven on motorways each year per person average
60 million people
99.4704 Billion miles driven
123 Deaths per year on motorways
123!!
My Point
--------
My point is, that people are so busy making the world safe and cosy and protective and nice and in doing so they're making us suffer miserable dull uninteresting lives.
123 people die on motorways from accidents (all causes).
15410 people lives are wasted in pottering along at safe speeds on dull motorways.
Quit mollycoddling you twat Blair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving SLOW kills more people than driving FA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving SLOW kills more people than driving FAST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even after that you would still come out faster than my car goes... I would presume
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's simple, if your driving a Truck, SUV, Geo, or Prius, you should not leave the slow lane. An SUV/Trucks tires are only rated for 75-85MPH at the maximum, that means if you are in the fast lane to pass someone your already maxing the tires on your vehicle and increasing the probability that you will cause an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counter Measures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Counter Measures
it was on myth busters. totally a scam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Counter Measures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Counter Measures
If you want counter measures, you would have to buy one of the many thousand dollar radar defeating systems. Basically they return a disrupting signal to the radar sending unit that makes it really hard to get a reading. They also have them for lasers, but they only give you time to slow down. As the distance to the laser is reduced the accuracy increases and eventually they get to a 1:1 relation and they get your speed.
Of course, most active denial radar/laser systems are illegal in many states and countries, so the ticket if you get caught might out weight what your saving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Counter Measures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp
But here's the REAL reason for them:
ACS Affiliate Computer Services
ACS was founded in 1988 and has become, according to their web site, the processor of more than half of the nations child-support and Medicaid payments. They also manage EZPass systems for many toll roads and service about $55 billion in federal student loans. In 2002 they reported more than $3 billion in sales. ACS claims to administer 80 percent of North Americas Red Light Cameras. ACS is one of the only companies in the Red Light Camera industry that continues to use the wet film system. Typically the wet film cameras cost the city much more in maintenance and operations due to the fact that the film must be changed by human hands every day. Most of the other Red Light Camera manufacturers have already switched over to digital film.
In 2001, ACS purchased the information management division of Lockheed Martin Corp. for $825 million. This move brought them more than $4 million annually from the contracts at the Philadelphia Traffic Court, the Fire Department the Bureau of Adjudication. ACS also pulls in more than $8 million a year in ticket processing fees from the Parking Authority. ACS places many ex-government officials into company executive positions. For example, Maury Hannigan is the former commission for the California Highway Patrol and the former host of Real Stories of the Highway Patrol, he is now a vice president for ACS.
*
Here - take a look at the stock price for ACS. Keep in mind - this is just one single company that does a lot of government work. Perhaps a Law should be enacted, to provide a limit on the number of government contracts a company can have?
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=ACS
Make sure you look at the 5 year. Nice steady increase.
Also note - ACS does a LOT of government software. Real Estate title databases, unclaimed funds reporting software, etc, etc..
Here's a good run down of their board of directors:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromMktGuideIdPersonTearsheet.jh tml?passedMktGuideId=53629
But start digging into the SEC filings... Lots of goodies there..
Contract with the Department of Education
The CSB contract is our largest contract. We have provided loan servicing for the Department of Education’s Direct Student Loan program for over ten years.
Government Healthcare Contract
In April 2004, we were awarded a contract by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) to replace and operate the North Carolina Medicaid Management Information System (“NCMMIS”).
In April 2007, we acquired CDR Associated, LLC (“CDR”), a leading provider of credit balance audit recovery and software services to healthcare payers, providers and State Medicaid agencies.
In April 2007, we acquired certain assets of Albion, Inc., a company specializing in integrated eligibility software solutions. The purchase price of $25.5 million, subject to certain adjustments, was funded through a combination of cash and borrowings under our Credit Facility. We believe this acquisition will enhance our capabilities in the Health and Human Services (“HHS”) sector. The acquisition enables us to address key HHS challenges facing State and Local government clients,
Revenue in our Government segment, which represents 40% of consolidated revenue for the third quarter of fiscal year 2007, increased $58.2 million, or 11%, to $582.4 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2007 compared to the same period last year. Excluding revenues related to divested operations, revenues increased $61.1 million, or 12% from the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, all from internal growth. We experienced growth in the following areas: (i) international and domestic transportation contracts,
Then to sum all that up - it appears they had to clean house of executive officers - they were post-dating stock options.. how nice for a company with SO very many government contracts..
The evidence gathered in the investigation disclosed that aside from Mr. Rich, Mr. King and Mr. Edwards, one other of our current management employees, who is not an executive officer or director, was aware of the intentional misdating of documents. Based on the evidence reviewed, no other current executives, directors or management employees were aware of either the improper use of hindsight in selecting grant dates or the intentional misdating of documents. It was also determined that these improper practices were generally followed with respect to option grants made to both senior executives and other employees. No evidence was found to suggest that the practices were selectively employed to favor executive officers over other employees.
They do all this - and RED LIGHT CAMERAS TOO!!!
Maybe I should buy some stock in them too, sheesh.
I bet if you dig into a number of other companies like; Computer Sciences Corp, Lockheed Martin, Haliburton.... you'll find tons of info just like this.
I'd really like to have a list of all of their top investors. I bet it would look like the role call in congress, lol.
I think most of these companies are just a way for politicians to channel tax money back into personal bank accounts. It would be too obvious to steal it outright.
Anyone else have 10 grand in cash in their freezer? :)
Notice - when that whole issue came up with Sen. William Jefferson - how QUICK the other side (republicans) were to suddenly 'protect' him.
But, like I have been coming to realize over the years. The whole 'two-party' hype is really just smoke and mirrors for the whole lot of them in Washington. They are all sitting around patting each other on the back while they rape the economic systems of the world. They just want us to think the Dems and Repubs hate each other. It gives the media and the public something to 'bicker' about, while the real issue is the political dynasties and funneling of money back into corporate interests that the political dynasties own.
Too bad it makes too much sense to be a wild conspiracy theory to me... But perhaps... I should make a tin foil hat, lol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute?
Gee, so the solution to preventing low-speed rear-end accidents is to increase the probability of high-speed t-bone accidents? Smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about wrongful tickets?
While this may seem like a somewhat minor point, it is definitely something to consider. Traffic cameras for the purpose of giving tickets automatically assume that the one that owns the car is the guilty party, when many times it may not be. If one of my friends or family members was driving my car, got caught by a speed camera, and I wasn't in the car, I'd take it to court and tell them that I was not the one driving my car and that I don't deserve a ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about wrongful tickets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about wrongful tickets?
1. Rent or borrow a vehicle similar to the victim's
2. Temporarily doctor the plates
3. Put on a cardboard mask with the the victim's likeness
4. Find a traffic enforcement camera
5. Proceed to commit numerous offenses in front of said camera (being sure the camera gets good shots of the mask)
Without a real live cop involved in making a stop to issue the ticket what is there to prevent this? These are the kinds of scenarios the traffic enforcement camera aficionados don't like to talk about.
It's my understanding that "ticketing the owner" usually only applies to individuals, not corporations. I got a parking ticket in a rental car one time and they sent the ticket directly to me, not the rental company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now speed cameras I don't have an issue with, as long as they're run honestly, though I do with the company running them didn't make so much money from it. Here the speed limit is 65, and the camera only goes off ifn you're going 75 or better. Companies are unlikely to be interested in playing with that simply because of how bad valley drivers are, they've clocked speeds out over 120MPH in that stretch, and catch thousands a month even with a ten MPH cushion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe the common term for a "stretch" like that is "speed trap".
Raking in the cash, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Stats
hehe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK Stats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited speed = 246 deaths/year
Bear in mind Germany (UNLIMITED SPEED) is 3.8 deaths per billion, so at most we're talking 2x the 123 = 246.
So it's insignificant compared to the waste of life sitting in cars plodding along on motorways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
Compare what we spend for people having accidents on the highways TO what we spend paying for traffic fines and court costs. I wonder which would be higher? :)
Perhaps, if their logic of 'it saves the public money' could be put to use in abolishing speed limits and fines on the roadways, we could all sleep a little better at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
umm..
Only 1% of the roads in Germany have no speed limit. It's a common misconception...no worries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time = Money
Bear in mind the huge life cost, if unlimited speed would at most double the death toll (an extra 123) on the motorways.
15410/123 = 125, so as long as the 1 death on the motorway doesn't take more than 125 man days to clean up, it's seriously money positive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time = Money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1%, no 75% of Autobahns
1. *Motorways* we're talking about, 75% of Autobahns have no speed limit.
2. I'm aware of the greens and their dubious local speed limits. (I have a German speeding fine, the officer explained it may not be legal and gave me the address if I wished to challenge it).
3. The limit the greens imposed is 80mph, still 10mph more than UK limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then why don't the police post an officer there continuously? It sounds like it would justify a full time position that would more than pay for itself. That is, if what you say is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is all this bs...
First of all, if somebody has to brake hard, because (s)he sees a red light camera, wouldn't (s)he, in absence of the red light camera (and braking) be running a red light? That sure sounds much safer...
Same for the speed cameras, if you have to brake when you notice one, you were speeding to begin with, so don't go blaming the camera.
In addition, the cameras don't force you to brake hard, it's still the driver's choice to do so (and try to avoid a ticket even though they clearly were doing something wrong).
I grew up (and drove around for about 13 years) in Belgium, we have tons of (mobile/portable) speed cameras and red light cameras...they do the same thing cops do...they register offenses, whether it's speeding or running a red light...
I don't need a camera to prevent me from running a red light, but when the light's yellow and I gun it, it's my decision, and if on occasion I am a tad too late and technically run the red light, well, I knew that could happen, my decision to begin with, so I have no right to bitch about the big bad cameras. Same thing with speeding...I did speed, not all the time, but not rarely either. I have gotten a couple of speeding tickets in the mail, but I never bitch(ed) about it...you speed, you accept the risk a camera, or a cop in an unmarked car for that matter, can spot you and write you a ticket...your decision, your consequences...
So don't go blaming the cameras or try to convince anyone that driving faster is safer or that cameras are causing accidents, they don't, it's drivers making bad decisions (both before seeing the camera (= decision to speed or try to beat the light) as when they notice the camera by braking hard) that cause those accidents. Just like they're the ones responsible, when an accident does occur, for making an accident worse than it should/could have been because they were speeding instead of respecting the speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is all this bs...
1) you don't speed yourself: why exactly do you have a problem with them, they don't affect you, they only register cars/drivers that are speeding, so there's no big brother issue...
2) you do speed: for those people, would you take for example a burglar serious when he insist alarm systems should be banned? or bank robbers saying bullet proof glass is bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it sounds much worse. Hesitant drives might stop immediatly on a yellow when they should keep going. Then the people behind them expecting to make the light slam into their rear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burglers are trying to steal. Driving over the speed limit on an empty road can be safe. People can be the best judges of safe speeds, and that is why police should be the ones pulling over people driving dangerously. Lets not forget, speeding tickets are 50% about making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I speed
I *do* speed on motorways, 80% of people do. So set the limits higher because it reflects the majority view of right and wrong.
Bank robbery is wrong, that's also the majority opinion of right and wrong.
So the two positions are consistent.
The laws should reflect the majority view of right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenue Camera's
The most important reason that these revenue cameras are inappropriate is that they give police powers to unaccountable inanimate objects and/or private companies. I for one don't like the idea of increasing the pool of those with police powers, the existing pool is dumb and corrupt enough.
Besides, the speed/red line cameras do not exist for safety but for REVENUE!!! Any flapping to the contrary is simple ignorance of the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your argument against red light cameras is fallacious at best. Even though they may increase the number of accidents they change the nature of the accidents from the deadly T-bone accident to the typically minor fender bender rear end accident at relatively small differences in velocity. The statement that the increase in accidents is caused by people slamming on their brakes is outright deceptive. They are caused by inattentive drivers who put themselves in the position of having to slam on their brakes and by inattentive drivers who aren't prepared for the car in front of them to actually stop when the light changes and by idiots who have no concept of physics and follow 10 feet behind the car in front of them. I was run over on my motorcycle for having the audacity to actually stop at a stop sign. The ass who ran me over showed no remorse and tried to blame the accident on me when explaining what happened to the cops. He didn't even received a ticket for an "accident" in which there was no physical way for anyone but him to be at fault.
The complete lack of enforcement of traffic laws and complete lack of any real punishment on the rare occasions they are enforced have turn roads into a massacre on a level with an actual combat zone. You can drive like a maniac and actually kill people and rarely are there any consequences. As you can see from the responses to this article people take no responsibility for their actions while driving. They insist everyone should drive at whatever speed they prefer to drive at and if they don't any problems are the fault of the person not driving at their preferred speed. This is complete nonsense. You have to have rules to regulate vehicle interaction. What causes some 40,000 deaths on the roads every year is people not following those rules. It's become so bad that actually trying to follow the rules by doing things like stopping at red lights has become dangerous and you seem to be supporting this deadly anarchy.
And don't get me started on the neo-prohibitionist pushing these ridiculous DWI/DUI laws. This crap started in mid 80's with drunks being the primary cause of the carnage on the roadways. Yet despite cars being made orders of magnitude safer since then these laws haven't abated the carnage much. But of course throwing people in jail for breathing the smell from a cocktail before driving or driving lawn mowers drunk or just sitting in their car while drunk is the solution. Maniacs driving are dangerous whether drunk or sober and are only marginally more dangerous with a .10 blood alcohol level. A safe driver is only marginal less safe with a .10 blood alcohol level and is still orders of magnitude safer than most of the maniacs driving sobor these days.
People need to be held responsible for their actions while driving. Black boxes should be added to all cars that record the last 15 minutes of inputs from the driver. When there is an accident this information is fed to a computer that analyzes what actually occurred. If you are found to have caused the accident you lose your license for 1 year for a first offense with stiffly increasing punishments for subsequent offenses. This will quickly take care of any problems with unsafe or inattentive drivers. Either they'll learn to drive safely or they won't be driving. Can't talk on the phone and drive safe? You'll quickly learn to or you'll stop doing it if you want to continue driving. Can't drink 3 beers and drive safe? You'll quickly learn not to or you won't be driving. Either way it would quickly abate the carnage on the roads. Before anyone brings up the how much it would cost to implement something like this it would be far cheaper then the billions both lost and spent as a result of the carnage on the roads today. And to the idiots that argue that this somehow violates their right to privacy your right to privacy doesn't include actions the risk killing other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I note that you conveniently leave out mentioning why the other driver didn't get a ticket. I have been the victim in a similar situation where the other driver was even drunk and didn't get a ticket. But it was due to police corruption and had nothing to do with any lack of traffic enforcement cameras as you are trying to insinuate.
I now believe that you are either a nut, a troll or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speed cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]