Why Aren't Automatic Speeding Tickets Issued?

[growerVon]

I drove around the uk for a week before I figured out what this sign meant, lol!

That's funny! I had the same experience this summer driving in Scotland and, until near the end of the vacation, thought they denoted picture taking spots. Of course I was fairly white-knuckled, it being my first time driving there, and couldn't give much focus to the impressive countryside; so thanks to the antique-camera signs I built this delusion that there were TONS of picturesque spots along the roads... which there really kind of were

 

[Fermion]

Slightly speeding doesn't cause accidents. Texting while driving, eating while driving, lack of sleep, impairment due to drugs/alcohol. Those are the primary causes and we only stop people for the drugs/alcohol (sometimes). I have never heard a news report about an accident that said so and so was going 58mph in a 55mph zone and this led to a 6 car pileup.

 

[Fishingmn]

Why stop at tickets for speeding, why not facial identification for littering, jaywalking. Why not computers on cars for improper lane changes, failure to properly signal. I would think the government could set up computer systems to enforce any number of fines and regulations on the books and make the world a safer and cleaner place for all.

Anyone who has seen what Volkswagen has done to pass government regulations and then insist that computerizing tickets is the way to go seems to be ignoring human nature and computer systems. The assumption is that the computer must be right but with the right programmer you can get any answer you desire.

This is exactly right. Why do people feel like they need to legislate how others behave when it doesn't impact them?

If you want cameras, robots and the government to regulate my actions yours are going to come under scrutiny next - and we all lose some of our freedoms over time.

 

[chemist]

I got radar'd on the causeway going over to Venice for 1.2 mph over the ridiculously low speed limit, and it cost $155 wired to the city's checking account in Euros. And Hertz hit Visa for $45 service charges for telling the city of Venice who was the driver and my address. The cameras are all over Italy and France.

They were all over the Netherlands when I lived there in 1995-1996. Of course if you were local you quickly learned where they were so they only trapped people from out of the area or new to the area.

 

[Which Roger]

I've often wondered this as well. There is some controversy over the red-light cameras (mostly bogus, IMO - IF the proper controls are in place), but speeding seems even easier to catch.

And in places like IL, where you have a transponder to auto pay tolls, why can't they say " Hey, you covered those last 10 miles at a rate that is 15 mph over the limit - ticket!".

-ERD50

Regarding the red light cameras, the "IF the proper controls are in place" part is the key. There are so many cases where the system has been abused by the politicians and contractors that a lot of people, myself included, have little faith that "proper controls" can ever happen.

Regarding the transponders, to bill me correctly, the toll authority has to know that I passed by the checkpoint. But they don't need to know any more than that, and I don't think they (or any other governmental entity) have any right to put all of the data points together to figure out my travel patterns.

 

[ERD50]

Why stop at tickets for speeding, why not facial identification for littering, jaywalking. Why not computers on cars for improper lane changes, failure to properly signal. I would think the government could set up computer systems to enforce any number of fines and regulations on the books and make the world a safer and cleaner place for all. ...

Sounds good to me. The things you mention lead to unsafe conditions (OK, littering may not be a safety issue, but I'd love to see those jerks fined out of existence - throw it in a trash can!). Those are reasonable laws, I'd say. Let's enforce them.

Anyone who has seen what Volkswagen has done to pass government regulations and then insist that computerizing tickets is the way to go seems to be ignoring human nature and computer systems. The assumption is that the computer must be right but with the right programmer you can get any answer you desire.

Corruption existed before modern technology. It is the corruption that must be addressed. Doesn't it seem that body cameras, dash cameras and surveillance cameras have done far more to uncover corruption than they have been used in corruption schemes? These tools are routinely helping us get the bad guys. Do you really think they are routinely being misused to entrap innocent citizens?

You May Think You Have Nothing to Hide ... But You Are Still Breaking Laws Which Government Spying Could Discover and Use Against You Washington's Blog

That seems more like a case for taking stupid laws off the books. What the point of a law that is not enforced?

Slightly speeding doesn't cause accidents. Texting while driving, eating while driving, lack of sleep, impairment due to drugs/alcohol. Those are the primary causes and we only stop people for the drugs/alcohol (sometimes). I have never heard a news report about an accident that said so and so was going 58mph in a 55mph zone and this led to a 6 car pileup.

I think that has been addressed repeatedly in this thread. The proposed (and existing) systems do not ticket for a few mph over the 'limit'.

If we could catch distracted/impaired driving, that would be wonderful. Ask anyone who has been or knows someone who was affected by one of these drivers - I'm sure they would like their life/mobility back if that driver was stopped from driving.

This is exactly right. Why do people feel like they need to legislate how others behave when it doesn't impact them?

If you want cameras, robots and the government to regulate my actions yours are going to come under scrutiny next - and we all lose some of our freedoms over time.

But we are talking about behavior that does affect us! Again, we are not 'free' to break the law! That's a misuse of the important word 'freedom'.

-ERD50

 

[Nodak]

They already have them pretty much everywhere, although I guess not where you are. IMO, the main reason not to have them is because this is supposed to be a free country where we aren't under surveillance 24/7. As Koo'lau's sig line says, anything that can be misused will be. Also they tend to be used more for increasing income vs. safety, just like the red light cameras, which have actually increased dangerous rear-end accidents.

Here is a list of some objections to speed cameras. Here is a study from Britain showing that raises doubt over their effectiveness.

But I still stand by my main objection, which is the slippery slope issue of massive surveillance. Soon they'll have cameras in your freezer monitoring your Ben and Jerry's consumption. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

+1

 

[audreyh1]

DH got a speeding ticket once from a camera. We saw the flash go off and new it was too late.

Funny thing is, once we got the ticket, had gone through all the trouble to pay it by mail. DH wasn't the one driving. We got a notice it had been dismissed because the setup had been determined not to be legal. And later got whatever we sent in back.

 

[meierlde]

In the US, per the 6th Amendment citizens have the right to confront their accuser in criminal cases. Though speeding is not a criminal offense, in general I don't wish humans to become servile to robotic accusers.

It depends on the state in Tx it is a class C misdemenor, so it is regarded as a crime. (equivalent to stealing less than $5)

 

[W2R]

DH got a speeding ticket once from a camera. We saw the flash go off and new it was too late.

Funny thing is, once we got the ticket, had gone through all the trouble to pay it by mail. DH wasn't the one driving. We got a notice it had been dismissed because the setup had been determined not to be legal. And later got whatever we sent in back.

Yes, that is exactly what went on here. I'm not sure why the setup didn't hold up in court, but it didn't. So now, the cameras are gone. They did a really good job for a few years right after Katrina, and people obeyed the speed limit signs. Now, speeding is out of control again.

 

[Which Roger]

If a cop writes me a ticket, I can go to court and challenge it. If the cop doesn't show up, the case gets thrown out. How do things work with a ticket from a camera?

 

[ERD50]

If a cop writes me a ticket, I can go to court and challenge it. If the cop doesn't show up, the case gets thrown out. How do things work with a ticket from a camera?

I would imagine that a representative of LE would be there with the evidence. And if no representative shows up, it would be thrown out of court.

Is this really any different than a cop with a radar printout? Did the cop 'see' you speeding? Not really, he relies on the technology.

-ERD50

 

[tfudtuckerpucker]

Here's a funny story. Years ago my friend from Taiwan got a camera ticket. It showed his face clearly. He asked my advice, and I told him to just say it wasn't you, and make them prove it was. Indeed, I said smiling, they probably can't tell you apart anyway. He did that, and they dismissed the ticket.

 

[RetireAge50]

This is a joke right? Would anyone really want someone watching over their shoulder ALL the time?

 

[ERD50]

This is a joke right? Would anyone really want someone watching over their shoulder ALL the time?

Is your comment a joke?

No one said we 'want someone watching over our shoulder ALL the time'. But if you are driving on a PUBLIC road, then yes, I think it would be a good idea to have everyone monitored while they are driving on a public road.

We now get monitored sometimes, almost randomly. Better to be consistent. Some people seem smooth enough (or cute enough) to talk themselves out of a ticket. The camera is more fair, IMO.

No joke.

-ERD50

 

[Lakewood90712]

If a cop writes me a ticket, I can go to court and challenge it. If the cop doesn't show up, the case gets thrown out. How do things work with a ticket from a camera?

Varies from state to state. In CA , A police officer reviews the photo evidence ( at least in theory, and is the " Arresting Officer ").

I can tell you from knowledge of my former employer, these officers are on 'non -field duty" , and generally there being un-officially punished by assignment to a real crap desk job, because command staff doesn't want them interacting with the public. Not real eager to look for discrepancies, and if they do, they will be stuck in this crap position until the " Rubber Stamp " mentality kicks in.

This LEO review is after the contractor running the system has already packed the citation info. The LEO just signs electronically.

The big problem and corruption is with the contractors screwing with calibrations, and yellow light timing. The LEO has to rely on the contractor .
The contractors are on " Commision" get paid for "Valid" citations , and promise $$$ to the city after all costs. Most of these contractors have been caught screwing with the calibrations for photo citations. And the penalty for what I consider a criminal conspiracy by a contractor ? Nothing.
The LEO doing the review and " Issuing " the photo citation, is sworn to enforce the law, uphold the constitution, etc, and even the lazy ones take this seriously. The contractors running the system generally don't. It's a cash machine, and the rat bastard local politicians just see dollars generated. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRAFFIC SAFETY.


The presence of traffic officers do a lot more to encourage drivers to slow down and stop doing stupid things behind the wheel.

Just my uninformed opinion

 

[W2R]

Edited to add: +1 to Lakewood's post just before this one. That sounds like the kinds of things I have been hearing around here. Makes more sense than what I said below in a more or less simultaneous post.

I would imagine that a representative of LE would be there with the evidence. And if no representative shows up, it would be thrown out of court.

Is this really any different than a cop with a radar printout? Did the cop 'see' you speeding? Not really, he relies on the technology.

-ERD50

IIRC examination of the camera output and identification of lawbreaking footage is subcontracted to the company that provides the service.

Later, specific lawbreaking footage that they identify goes to LE and to court but the rest of the footage doesn't. Seems reasonable to me, but I wonder if this has anything to do with why it won't hold up in court.

 

[utrecht]

It depends on the state in Tx it is a class C misdemenor, so it is regarded as a crime. (equivalent to stealing less than $5)

Actually its equivalent to stealing less than $50 in Texas. Not $5.

Speeding tickets need to be issued by a police officer who can testify that he personally witnessed a specific person committing the violation of speeding and that his radar gun was calibrated within a certain time frame (I believe it is once a day but could be wrong).

Speeding tickets aren't issued to a vehicle. They aren't issued to a person. Cameras cant prove who was driving. Even if the camera takes a picture of the person driving, it doesn't prove it is a certain person even if it looks like them. Also, there's no way that a device that is mounted on a pole somewhere will ever be calibrated regularly.

 

[GrayHare]

That seems more like a case for taking stupid laws off the books. What the point of a law that is not enforced?
-ERD50

Agree with you on that, but it is much easier to create laws than to remove them... as an example consider the tax code. Legislators are called law _makers_ for a reason.

 

[Lakewood90712]

PS Traffic stops find a LOT of unlicensed drivers, drunks / impaired drivers, suspended licences , no insurance, outstanding warrants, etc. This is traffic safety work . automated tickets do none of this.

 

[utrecht]

In Dallas, the people reviewing citations from red light cameras are not police officers. Most of them are retired officers so we should be able to trust their judgement, but they are still civilians. Now you are talking about a getting a ticket from a camera that has not been calibrated, cant prove who was driving, and the video footage being reviewed by a civilian who doesnt have the same authority as a police officer does.

That's a really bad idea, not too mention (at least in Texas) there are no actual speed limits. The traffic code says that you should not drive faster than the conditions allow. The posted speed limit signs are generally accepted to be the safe limits for that area but they have been tested in court and been beaten in the past. You need a police officer to testify that in his judgement, whatever speed the person was driving when he got the ticket was in fact unsafe for the road conditions. A camera cant do that and neither can a person sitting in an office reviewing footage after the fact. All of these reasons are why a lot of these tickets are lost in court.

 

[Car-Guy]

Why not computers on cars for improper lane changes, failure to properly signal. I would think the government could set up computer systems to enforce any number of fines and regulations on the books and make the world a safer and cleaner place for all.

The technology is already pretty much available on many vehicles and getting cheaper everyday. (So, many more vehicles will have it in the near future) It just needs some adjustments for the new intended purposes. Example, my latest vehicle has an integrated navigation system that shows my current speed (VIA GPS) and is super accurate. The vehicle also knows when I'm changing lanes and will warn me if there's another vehicle nearby in an adjacent lane. (Seems to work very well). It also will alert me if I'm exceeding the local speed limits. (That's not 100% accurate but works reasonably well). Heck, it will even warn me when I'm entering a school zone "if during school zone hours". So with GPS, and an accurate Nav system and all the senors the vehicle has, it's not to much of a stretch to see how this could be used to track/detect all sorts of driving "infractions" and ticket you. (sent to the government either wireless or whenever you get a vehicle safety inspection, etc.)

Another small step would be to add a driver license reader (or finger print recognition) to the system so they know who's driving and if the license is valid or not. Sure some of these things could be defeated today but that too could be ticketed if/when you are caught. Add a camera and voice recorder (also very cheap) and the list of things these technologies could detect/monitor seem to be almost endless, just like all the ways folks will try to defeat them. But over a short period of time, they could become pretty sophisticated and cheap and a tremendous source of revenue for the various government agencies. And of course make things safer.

 

[Car-Guy]

Another thought. If the government is so concerned with vehicles speeding, then why do they still allow cars to be built that do not have speed limiters? Most cars today have speed limiters but they are there mainly due to speed ratings of the tires and maybe some aerodynamic limitations in some cases. However, there are a number of vehicles that you can buy today (I have and have had several) with high speed rated tires, proper gearing, engine etc, that will easily exceed 150mph right off the showroom floor. (trust me on that) Maybe it is just in case you go to a race track or go to Germany and drive on some sections of the Autobahn?

 

[BobW]

Agree with you on that, but it is much easier to create laws than to remove them... as an example consider the tax code. Legislators are called law _makers_ for a reason.

To many laws on the books for sure. Should require removing one old law for every new law passed.

 

[bingybear]

In Dallas, the people reviewing citations from red light cameras are not police officers. Most of them are retired officers so we should be able to trust their judgement, but they are still civilians. Now you are talking about a getting a ticket from a camera that has not been calibrated, cant prove who was driving, and the video footage being reviewed by a civilian who doesnt have the same authority as a police officer does.

That's a really bad idea, not too mention (at least in Texas) there are no actual speed limits. The traffic code says that you should not drive faster than the conditions allow. The posted speed limit signs are generally accepted to be the safe limits for that area but they have been tested in court and been beaten in the past. You need a police officer to testify that in his judgement, whatever speed the person was driving when he got the ticket was in fact unsafe for the road conditions. A camera cant do that and neither can a person sitting in an office reviewing footage after the fact. All of these reasons are why a lot of these tickets are lost in court.

from txdot.gov

The law sets the maximum at 70 mph, but allows the Texas Transportation Commission to establish a maximum speed limit of 75 mph (80 mph or 85 mph if the highway is designed to accommodate that speed) on the highway system if that speed is determined to be safe and reasonable after a traffic or engineering study. A maximum speed limit of 80 mph within 10 counties on Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 is also permitted.

City governments and TxDOT must conduct traffic and engineering studies according to requirements outlined in TxDOT's publication, Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones, when setting a speed limit on the state highway system. Speed limits on state highways may be set by the Commission or by a city if the highway is within city limits.

It sounds like they set the speed limits based on studies and design specs.