As of April 1, 2009, a handful of red light cameras in Calgary will be converted to also have the ability to snap individuals who speed through the intersection, even if the light is green.

Naturally, there is a good amount of opposition from some members of the community who feel that these cameras do not assist in preventing collisions or ensure safety at such intersections, and feel that these are in place only to rob the public of it's cash.

Of course, having to pay such a fine is completely voluntary since one would not need to worry about being stuck with the fine if they do not speed through an intersection.

What do you think of such technology being implemented...?

There may be a case for red light cameras but speed cameras are about as low as a city can go. Especially if they are given to people driving through an intersection at a green light.

Will they also fine people moving too slowly, as they're much more likely to cause an accident?

Our fascination with give people tickets for speeding, even if they are not driving wrecklessly, is completely beyond me. If they're driving too fast, and weaving in and out of traffic, ticket them, but beyond simply for going faster is just stupid, IMO.

  

Cheers,
Cameron

They have them here in Houston and the majority of those caught are caught within a second of the light changing. These are not the people that are causing accidents. Those kinds of people miss the light by 30 seconds or more because they are not paying attention to begin with. Several studies have been done by groups opposed to the camera's and they have, in some instances, shown that accidents have actually gone up at those intersections where people know the cameras are since they are more apt to lock the brakes up and try to stop if they even think they are going to be close to busting the red. Consequently the person behind them, who was probably traveling too closely anyway, piles into that persons rear end. In the long run it seems as if it more just a cheap way for the city to garner more revenue.

I'd support cameras if they ticketed people for following too closely.

2H4

Quoting N867DA (Reply 2): There may be a case for red light cameras but speed cameras are about as low as a city can go. Especially if they are given to people driving through an intersection at a green light.

The police in Scottsdale, Arizona have been using mobile speeding cameras (called photo-radar) and stoplight cameras for about 10 years now. One stoplight camera installed at the corner of Scottsdale and Cactus Roads issued 600 tickets in its first few days of operation. The installation of these cameras is all about "revenue enhancement" for the local government, IMO.

By the way, the damn photo radar nabbed me three times in the 8 years that I lived in Scottsdale!   

I hate these things, even if I'm immune to them (no I'm not I'm not telling how either).

Quoting A332 (Thread starter): As of April 1, 2009, a handful of red light cameras in Calgary will be converted to also have the ability to snap individuals who speed through the intersection, even if the light is green.

Sucks for you guys.

Quoting A332 (Thread starter): What do you think of such technology being implemented...?

It's complete BS. While I don't have a problem with standalone red light cameras, speed cameras and red light cameras in one same unit /intersection to me just seems extremely overzealous. AZ is plagued with them, even in a little POS town like PRC.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 2): There may be a case for red light cameras

  

The only people you hear complaining are the d-bags who speed through red and green lights alike with wanton disregard for the safety of other drivers and pedestrians. The only unfortunate thing is that these cameras are not at every single intersection. I would much rather a city get its revenue by busting these lawbreakers than, for example, jack up property taxes on everyone to pay for the city's budgetary incompetence.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 7): The only people you hear complaining are the d-bags who speed through red and green lights alike with wanton disregard for the safety of other drivers and pedestrians. The only unfortunate thing is that these cameras are not at every single intersection. I would much rather a city get its revenue by busting these lawbreakers than, for example, jack up property taxes on everyone to pay for the city's budgetary incompetence.

Considering how ridiculous speed limits are in the States, the vast majority of people "caught" speeding are not endangering anyone. I can think of 5 speed trap zones off the top of my head where it is perfectly safe to go 45-50 but the speed limit is 30-35. Speed limits here are ridiculous, and to call every speeder a d-bad with wanton disregard for public safety is extreme and inaccurate.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 8): to call every speeder a d-bad with wanton disregard for public safety is extreme and inaccurate.

Indeed. It's often more prudent to accelerate and exceed the posted limit by a few mph than it is to slam on the brakes at the light.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 7): I would much rather a city get its revenue by busting these lawbreakers than, for example, jack up property taxes on everyone to pay for the city's budgetary incompetence.

I would much rather a city's traffic enforcement place more importance on safety than revenue. And I have yet to see many cities provide solid evidence that red-light cameras actually enhance safety.

2H4

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 8): Considering how ridiculous speed limits are in the States, the vast majority of people "caught" speeding are not endangering anyone. I can think of 5 speed trap zones off the top of my head where it is perfectly safe to go 45-50 but the speed limit is 30-35.

Seems your definition of "perfectly safe" is whatever speed you feel like driving.

You always have the choice to move to a place where the speed limits are more accommodating to your need for speed.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 8): Speed limits here are ridiculous, and to call every speeder a d-bad with wanton disregard for public safety is extreme and inaccurate.

Yeah, I'm sure they are all "peacefully protesting"...    Let's be honest, speeders and red-light criminals believe they are above the law and don't care who gets in their way as long as they can shave 10 seconds off their commute.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 9): I would much rather a city's traffic enforcement place more importance on safety than revenue.

I have yet to see your proof that red light cameras affect a city's emphasis on safety.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 7): The only people you hear complaining are the d-bags who speed through red and green lights alike with wanton disregard for the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.

What about the dbags that slam on their brakes as soon as they see a speed camera, EVEN when they are way BELOW the posted limit, and considering they all have an 11mph buffer before they actually go off? Then the person behind, if they actually notice, slams too, and the car behind that one does the same, and so on. Anybody who has driven on speed camera infested freeways (like PHX) knows very well what I'm talking about.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): I have yet to see your proof that red light cameras affect a city's emphasis on safety.

Here is plenty of proof :

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/studies/

http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404

Winnipeg uses Speed cameras as well as red light cameras at selected intersections. The tolerance for speed is 10 km/h, yet there are reports of morons cooking past them at speeds of up to 75 k/ph over the limit. All they do is mail the ticket to the vehicle's registered owner, but no points, as they can't prove who was driving.

Also, in more than a few instances, the cameras have helped track stolen vehicles (mine included).

That said, I'm for them, and I'd like to see the program expanded to also ticket vehicles going too slow, following too close, crosswalk incursions, illegal turns, and the like.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): I have yet to see your proof that red light cameras affect a city's emphasis on safety.

If it can be proven that red light cameras legitimately produce a reduction in accidents and an increase in safety, then a city's investment in them would seem prudent, and I would interpret the installation and maintenance of said cameras as a sign that the city is most interested in the safety of drivers.

If that cannot be proven, then I would have to conclude that the city is investing in them solely to increase revenue and not for safety. It's possible that doing this would not affect a city's emphasis on safety, but to me, it's a symptom of a city placing more importance on revenue than safety. And such an imbalance in priorities would not be unprecedented.

If you can find independent studies that prove red-light cameras do in fact enhance safety, I'd love to see them. But my gut feeling is that the vast, vast majority of red-light cameras exist...whether the cities admit it...to produce revenue as opposed to increasing safety, sometimes even at the cost of promoting safe driving practices.

I have yet to see cities provide solid evidence that red-light cameras actually enhance safety.

2H4

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 8): Speed limits here are ridiculous, and to call every speeder a d-bad with wanton disregard for public safety is extreme and inaccurate. Yeah, I'm sure they are all "peacefully protesting"... sarcastic Let's be honest, speeders and red-light criminals believe they are above the law and don't care who gets in their way as long as they can shave 10 seconds off their commute.

Someone going 5-7 mph over the limit suddenly has no regard for anyone? What world do you live in? You are describing a good 65+% of the population. Going 25 over the limit is one thing, but 5? Seriously?

What about interstates? Do you seriously go 65 on those (55 in some states)? Often going 65/55 on the highway is actually MORE dangerous for public safety as you are not keeping up with traffic and creating a sudden slow-down in a lane.

I could understand the use 'stop light' cameras to give out tickets at locations with high rates of accidents but there a number of issues with them as others have noted here.
Although in my state (New Jersey) unmanned speed cameras are not allowed by State law (for a number of years) we are only now are we getting a few stop light cameras, mainly at those intersections with high rates of accidents at them. I hope they post easy to see signs warning people that such cameras are in use. Some insurance companies don't like the idea of not giving out points and often are the biggest cheerleaders of speed/stop light cameras so to justify higher premiums.
I also believe in Arizona, there was a recent state court decision there that limits the use by local police forces as to unmanned speed/stop light cameras. One of those jurisdictions figured out too that after the operaters cut for the cameras, it meant less money to their town that with human cops. Also such cameras don't notice like a human cop can as to possible drunk or dangerous drivers.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 7): The only people you hear complaining are the d-bags who speed through red and green lights alike with wanton disregard for the safety of other drivers and pedestrians

Oh please....gimme a break. I haven't been driving very long but on the freeways and arteries I'm forced to use the "d-bag" doing 40 in a 55 is much more dangerous than the guy doing 65. I obey the speed limit or match the speed of traffic and never run red lights. I yield for every pedestrian period, even the ones that jaywalk across five lanes wearing black pants and a black shirt at 6:30 am. I've waited for the goddamn light to change at 3 a.m. ...waiting for zero cars to clear the intersection. There is a difference between driving safely and driving slowly.

Most of the red light camera fines in my town come from the one or two drivers that run a light after a green signal. The intersection "box" is already clear of all opposing traffic. The only major problem is that other traffic has to wait an extra three seconds before hitting the accelerator. Such a move is obviously illegal but it doesn't compromise safety. Few people go charging through a busy interchange and I highly doubt that people with such disregard for others would stop to avoid a $70 fee.

It's a money grab, pure and simple. And the police department tells anyone in the press who dares to point this out to go screw themselves.

I live in one of the first cities in TN to have Red Light Camera's..

my opinion?

After two years of them up and running, it seems that the majority of collections come from people "rolling" thru a right turn on red. Yea.. if you don't come to a complete stop while making a right, it will cost you $50. Those people who roll through a right turn on red, what, cause 1%, if that, of accidents?

If they are truly installed to stop the running of red lights, then they wouldn't be used as a way to increase revenue.
They would simply be placed at high incident intersections, and if accidents occur, they can be used as proof of who ran the light. That in itself would slow the practice of running the lights without the controversy of collecting fines from drivers they can't even prove were driving.

What is to say the person didn't speedup to avoid a collision by someone running the light or some other such reason. Cameras are indiscriminate.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): Seems your definition of "perfectly safe" is whatever speed you feel like driving.

That's right - everyone going faster than you is a reckless fool, and everyone going slower is an idiot that needs to learn how to drive.  

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 11): Here is plenty of proof :

And here are a number of studies showing the effectiveness of RLCs:
http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/4281997/
http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/103676
http://baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=277e3657fc6c7cbb
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008...ocal/doc4784e23fb6e16339270196.txt

And finally, a study by the US DOT Federal Highway Administration:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/
They show mixed results, with a decrease in side impact crashes, and a lesser increase in rear end crashes. They do note however, that rear end crashes tend to be less severe, causing much less property damage and significantly reduced injuries.

OK wait, I somehow don't see the issue. What's the problem in simply *not* driving over the speed limit, and *not* running the red light?

I think speed cameras of any kind are a good idea, because they increase the city's (or state's) income, which is always a good thing nowadays, and are basically a voluntary contribution. Everyone knows that speeding or running red lights might trigger a fine, and thus people are perfectly conscious that what they're doing (ie. speeding) might result in said voluntary contribution being applied.

You can choose: drive the correct speed for free, or drive faster and pay premium  

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 1): Our fascination with give people tickets for speeding, even if they are not driving wrecklessly, is completely beyond me. If they're driving too fast, and weaving in and out of traffic, ticket them, but beyond simply for going faster is just stupid, IMO.

Easy money and thats the only reason why speeding is such a sin. There are far more dangerous traffic infractions (such as passing on the right) that, at least around here don't even get a second glance.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): Seems your definition of "perfectly safe" is whatever speed you feel like driving.

Perfectly safe would actually post a speed that the road is designed for, not improving a road and then lowering the speedlimit by 10 or 20 km/h because its "safer". Safe is not having speedlimits that are posted for no just cause or any logical reasoning behind it.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): You always have the choice to move to a place where the speed limits are more accommodating to your need for speed.

We could also catch up with the rest of the modern world (I'm talking about Canada in particualr) and actually post speed limits to get people moving and post a speedlimit that the road was designed for.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 20): That's right - everyone going faster than you is a reckless fool, and everyone going slower is an idiot that needs to learn how to drive.

You've just described the typical North American driver 

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 4): I'd support cameras if they ticketed people for following too closely.

   If the person behind me wants to go faster than me and break the speed limit, I have no problem moving aside. What pisses me off is when I'm being held up in the outside lane by someone else and the person behind decides to take it out on me by driving 10m behind at ~65 mph.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 11): What about the dbags that slam on their brakes as soon as they see a speed camera, EVEN when they are way BELOW the posted limit

   In the UK, the police tend to drive either quite a bit below the speed limit, precisely to avoid causing a bottleneck, or, when responding to an emergency, quite a bit over the limit. That's why I find it very annoying to be held up at 10 mph below the limit because some people panic and overreact when they see a police car, slamming on ther brakes and making it look as though there's a major incident ahead. Do the ones in the outside lane pull over when they slow down? Do they hell. They carry on down the ouside lane at exactly the same speed as the cars in the inside lane. When they eventually figure out what a mess they're causing and do pull in, there's not much that gives me more satisfaction than cruising past with my speedometer showing about 5 mph over the limit (i.e. 75 mph) and knowing that I'm actually going no more than 1 or 2 mph over the limit and am very unlikely to be stopped.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13): If you can find independent studies that prove red-light cameras do in fact enhance safety, I'd love to see them.

See:

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 20): And here are a number of studies showing the effectiveness of RLCs: http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/4281997/ http://www.govtech.com/gt/articles/103676 http://baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=277e3657fc6c7cbb http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008...ocal/doc4784e23fb6e16339270196.txt And finally, a study by the US DOT Federal Highway Administration: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/ They show mixed results, with a decrease in side impact crashes, and a lesser increase in rear end crashes. They do note however, that rear end crashes tend to be less severe, causing much less property damage and significantly reduced injuries.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 14): Someone going 5-7 mph over the limit suddenly has no regard for anyone? What world do you live in? You are describing a good 65+% of the population.

That sounds like an accurate number.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 14): Often going 65/55 on the highway is actually MORE dangerous for public safety as you are not keeping up with traffic and creating a sudden slow-down in a lane.

Huh? This post doesn't make sense, but it appears you are blaming the people who do obey the speed limit for hazards created by those who ignore the law. That's rich...

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 21): Perfectly safe would actually post a speed that the road is designed for

AKA, however fast YOU feel like driving.

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 21): Safe is not having speedlimits that are posted for no just cause or any logical reasoning behind it.

Link? Source?

Quoting ACDC8 (Reply 21): speedlimit that the road was designed for

That seems to be your favorite new phrase, however it is meaningless and seems to be an excuse for you to drive however fast you want. There are enough reckless drivers as is. Raising speed limits to the mythical number of "whatever ACDC8 feels the road was designed for" would encourage and increase the already rampant reckless behavior. That's nice that you feel you are too important to drive the speed limit. But my concern is for the innocent drivers who are put at risk by your dangerous and careless driving.

It is a failing of society to ignore the set speed limit or red lights for personal gain.

Quoting A332 (Thread starter): What do you think of such technology being implemented...?

Horrible idea, it should be illegal. Red Light cameras at intersections which have a lot of red light running accidents are okay but still I dont agree with them. But now a speed camera. I would be very unhappy. Now will it only ticket you if you are going more than 8mph+ because many police officers dont even bother with giving tickets 8 over or below. A camera does not know your different circumstances. Sure it is great that it might keep police free to do more important things but I just dont agree with it. It should be illegal.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 24): A camera does not know your different circumstances.

That's right - all it knows is that you broke the law.

I suppose I find myself completely torn on the issue, since I believe that implementation of such devices does tend to generate revenue off the backs of individuals who, for the most part, are not placing anyone in any inherent danger by coasting through an intersection slightly above the speed limit or coasting through an amber signal as it turns red... under normal conditions and circumstances.

However, I have posed this question to a younger audience on another forum who are of the vast 'self-absorbed & contemptuous' crowd, those who are quick to state that "no ticket will ever stop me from speeding" and other such nonsense. Naturally, their opposition is fierce and their reasoning is completely outrageous. These are the perpetrators that I am perfectly fine seeing ticketed over and over again... idiot drivers who think having a license is a God-given right and not a privilege.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 14): Often going 65/55 on the highway is actually MORE dangerous for public safety as you are not keeping up with traffic and creating a sudden slow-down in a lane. Huh? This post doesn't make sense, but it appears you are blaming the people who do obey the speed limit for hazards created by those who ignore the law. That's rich...

And there in lies the problem. When the vast majority of the people are not "obeying" the law by driving above 65, do you either a)drive the speed limit, thereby creating a hazard and essentially nullifying the laws purpose of safety or b)do you drive faster, with traffic.

The law is not some mysterious truth that knows what is best. In theory, laws are designed to serve some purpose to the general good. The general goal of speed limits is to have people drive at such a speed at which it is deemed safe. This brings up two issues

1)If by following the law a greater hazard is created in certain circumstances (as shown above) the law is no longer fulfilling its purpose.What is the point then?

2)The level of safety desired is defined by the people who must therefore obey the law that threshold produces. Theoretically, speed limits should be 0 as not driving is a helluva a lot safer than driving at any speed. But we accept some risk to bring about a result (get somewhere, deliver some good etc). As the people are the ones who define how much risk they are willing to take, they are the ones who should inherently design the law. Thus it is a non-sequitur that if the vast majority of people disobey a law that law should remain unchanged. In relation to speed limits, if the vast majority of people disobey a speed limit in a certain area (those same 5 areas I listed before I drive nearly every day. I can count on my fingers the number of times I drove behind a car going the actual speed limit) it implies they are willing to accept a higher level of risk than that speed limit designates. If this is true, the law should be changed to reflect the desires of the people who define it. But these laws don't get changed, mostly because the provide those who enforce the laws a means to gain resources.

My 2 cents

A slightly paranoid view to speed limits and speed fines:
http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/appndxd.htm

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): There are enough reckless drivers as is. Raising speed limits to the mythical number of "whatever ACDC8 feels the road was designed for" would encourage and increase the already rampant reckless behavior.

Wow, very interesting statement. Care to support it with some evidence?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): Raising speed limits to the mythical number of "whatever ACDC8 feels the road was designed for" would encourage and increase the already rampant reckless behavior.

By the language you are using it sounds like this is more of a personal issue.

I'd rather drive with skilled drivers traveling at 75 in a 60 than drivers applying make-up while downing their fourth coffee...but keeping their car set to 55 mph.

Quoting A332 (Thread starter): As of April 1, 2009, a handful of red light cameras in Calgary will be converted to also have the ability to snap individuals who speed through the intersection, even if the light is green.

We have a few of those here..they suck big time. Bloody things malfunction all the time..causing the lights to go off also. Bad idea. Whoever came up with this idea should be shot.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29): I'd rather drive with skilled drivers traveling at 75 in a 60 than drivers applying make-up while downing their fourth coffee...but keeping their car set to 55 mph.

Same here. The number of idiots using the road is unbelievable. Many people (especially some old folks) drive cars as old as they are...and are so damn slow..they hold up traffic and are more of a hazard than someone who is speeding 5 or 8 km/h over the limit.

RED LIGHT CAMERAS SUCK!!!!

Why you ask? Did you get a ticket that would make you pissed??

NO, they screw up traffic. People know where they are causing them to slow down for a green instead of keeping a normal pace of speed. This cause a backlog of traffic at a light for no reason.

But the real reason is for the crashes. I witnessed one no less than a month ago. A car was going fairly fast and then instead of going through a green/yellow...he slammed on the brakes causing the 18 wheeler to plow right into him. Not a pretty sight.

There is no safe speeding..... You choose your speed and you choose the consequences...

Quoting N867DA (Reply 2): There may be a case for red light cameras but speed cameras are about as low as a city can go. Especially if they are given to people driving through an intersection at a green light.

I wonder what your reaction would be down here with school zones where there are radar cameras and the speed limit varies with time of day, day of week, and date, with most not having an indication if the school zone speed is in operation. Absent knowing the school holidays that the cameras are using they are a problem. 40 kph when the restriction is on, and either 50 or 60 when not on.

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 27): drive the speed limit, thereby creating a hazard and essentially nullifying the laws purpose of safety

Quoting AKiss20 (Reply 27): If by following the law a greater hazard is created in certain circumstances (as shown above) the law is no longer fulfilling its purpose.What is the point then?

Blaming people who do obey the law for hazards caused by those who recklessly ignore the law does not advance your argument.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29): By the language you are using it sounds like this is more of a personal issue.

It's a societal issue.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29): I'd rather drive with skilled drivers traveling at 75 in a 60 than drivers applying make-up while downing their fourth coffee...but keeping their car set to 55 mph.

That's nice. Let me know when you have the ability to make that choice...

Quoting N867DA (Reply 29): I'd rather drive with skilled drivers traveling at 75 in a 60 than drivers applying make-up while downing their fourth coffee...but keeping their car set to 55 mph.

Amen

When riding a bus, shuttle or other vehicle when I'm not driving myself, I always look out the window to see what other people are doing as they drive. Lets just say It's a thoroughly disturbing thing to do. I've seen people reading newspaper, tying their shoelaces, yelling at the stupid brats in the back, and of course yapping in the cell phone and or texting novels.

By seeing those things I'm willing to bet less than 80% of the people driving at a given time are putting full attention into driving and are causing a hazard to others.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 34): Blaming people who do obey the law for hazards caused by those who recklessly ignore the law does not advance your argument.

Alright, so picture this: In all the major cities I've been to (IAH,LAX,ATL, etc) NOBODY drives at the limit on the freeways. It's usually about 5mph+ from the posted limit. When I was living in Houston, there were days, at pretty busy times, where everybody was doing 20mph over the posted limit, 75 in a 55. And the cops would drive at that speed if not faster.

So should all these people that were "recklessly ignoring the law" be sent to jail and sentenced to death?  

Almost every state out there states that the speed limit is whatever is posted OR A SPEED MATCHING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. There is a reason for that. Many times I'd run into an idiot in the far left lane doing well below the flow of traffic so I'd have to swerve and change lanes to avoid him, and everybody behind me would do the same. It's those people driving slower than the whole traffic flow that are causing a hazard.

Also, a girl friend of mine once got a ticket for doing just that. The flow of traffic was about 15 over the limit but she was driving 45 in a 55. She got a ticket for "obstructing traffic flow" or whatever the technical term is. This was in CA. And she admits she deserved it.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): Seems your definition of "perfectly safe" is whatever speed you feel like driving. You always have the choice to move to a place where the speed limits are more accommodating to your need for speed.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 10): Let's be honest, speeders and red-light criminals believe they are above the law and don't care who gets in their way as long as they can shave 10 seconds off their commute.

Here's an example.... Howell Ave (right past the airport and going south in MKE) is a 30 and moves up to a 40 zone. I've done 50 past cops in the 40 zone because its as well built as my former road (a 4 lane highway with a 65 mph speed limit) in the country. There is small businesses along the road and there could easily be a 50 zone. I was being passed by another car while I was going 10 over. If we're law breakers, why weren't we both pulled over? PERFECTLY SAFE is not our definition, but it should be matched to the same style road all over, not just whatever a town chooses.

Another example is the other side of the airport. Between Layton and College the speed limit is 35, south of College to Rawson it drops to 30 (turns to 2 lane just south of College), then south of Rawson to Drexel it turns to 25 (still 2 lane, still semi-residential), south of Drexel it raises to 30 again. Why the speed drop from Rawson to Drexel? Its the same road, same surface, same residential area (South Milwaukee/Oak Creek border)???

Quoting OzTech (Reply 32): There is no safe speeding..... You choose your speed and you choose the consequences...

Quoting WellHung (Reply 34): Blaming people who do obey the law for hazards caused by those who recklessly ignore the law does not advance your argument.

Then can you atleast do the speedlimit when I go past you like your standing still? I can't count the number of times on a 65 mph road that I've had my cruise set between 65 and 70 and still have to slam on my brakes because somebody thinks that 60 is a safe speed. I'm looking for stats I got in high school (drivers ed) that showed going slow was more dangerous to the flow of traffic than speeding.

EDIT: Speaking of Cruise Control..... people need to learn to use it. If you're on open highway, set your cruise take your foot off the pedal and decide wether you want to do 60 or 70 or whatever the car trying to PASS you is trying to do with their CRUISE ON.



[Edited 2009-03-05 09:57:16]

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 19): OK wait, I somehow don't see the issue. What's the problem in simply *not* driving over the speed limit, and *not* running the red light?

I agree. And what I find equally as ridiculous is the claim that drivers can drive "safely" above the speed limit. The driving test here in the US is a joke, most drivers (regardless of what they say) are terrible drivers, and yet we want to turn a blind eye and trust them to drive faster than the limit? 90% of the time I'm out and about as a pedestrian and I have to constantly watch out for drivers going too fast for the conditions/road, turning right in front of you when you have the right to walk, heck even the bikers (who often claim discrimination themselves from drivers) show little regard for pedestrians. When we have higher standards for licensing people then we can re-visit the "ridiculous" speed limits and perhaps we can trust drivers enough to uninstall the cameras. Until then keep them up!

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 19): You can choose: drive the correct speed for free, or drive faster and pay premium

What a concept huh? What people forget too is that had the camera been a cop the driver would have been ticketed anyways. This way police can dedicate their time to more serious offenses and we let the cameras catch the idiots who think only their time is valuable.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): This way police can dedicate their time to more serious offenses

Like Tim Hortons running out of glazed donuts?

http://www.cybersalt.org/cl_images/1zzzzxa/d/donutsafe.jpg

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): That seems to be your favorite new phrase, however it is meaningless and seems to be an excuse for you to drive however fast you want. There are enough reckless drivers as is. Raising speed limits to the mythical number of "whatever ACDC8 feels the road was designed for" would encourage and increase the already rampant reckless behavior. That's nice that you feel you are too important to drive the speed limit. But my concern is for the innocent drivers who are put at risk by your dangerous and careless driving.

I think it seems fairly obvious that roads are engineered to accomodate certain speeds. Expressways tend to have few curves, level grade, long sight lines, curb lanes and wide rights-of-way which allow people to drive safer at higher speeds. A downtown commercial street tends to be quite narrow, short sight lines, parking along the side, and many pedestrians, which encourage people to drive slower. My experience has been that new roads tend to be grossly over-engineered, usually in the name of safety. So an collector street in a residential neighbourhood will take on more of the characteristics of the expressway; perhaps there is a boulevard separating the two directions of traffic, the curves may be minimized to lengthen sight lines so that it is easier to see obstructions, wide curbs may be built to allow traffic to pass a parked vehicle, or even for as simple a reason as allowing a large fire engine to safely negotiate the street (that brings up another question - should we be engineering streets to accomodate fire trucks, or fire trucks to accomodate streets?). Each of these measures would allow traffic to operate at a higher speed safer than if the street were narrower, curvier etc. regardless of the posted speed limit. Ironically, the end result is that more people likely speed along the street, and it becomes proportionally less safe for pedestrians and children - ostensibly the original concern.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 35): So should all these people that were "recklessly ignoring the law" be sent to jail and sentenced to death?

Strawman to the rescue...  

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 35): Almost every state out there states that the speed limit is whatever is posted OR A SPEED MATCHING THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC.

This is a mischaracterization, which fits quite nicely with the rest of your argument. The actual speed limit never exceeds the posted speed limit no matter what the "flow of traffic" is, or how loud you proclaim it.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 35): Many times I'd run into an idiot in the far left lane doing well below the flow of traffic so I'd have to swerve and change lanes to avoid him

If you can't see far enough in front of you to avoid swerving from hitting someone or if you are travelling too fast to safely change lanes, you are the dangerous and reckless driver who is at fault.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 35): Also, a girl friend of mine once got a ticket for doing just that. The flow of traffic was about 15 over the limit but she was driving 45 in a 55. She got a ticket for "obstructing traffic flow" or whatever the technical term is.

Heresay.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 36): If we're law breakers, why weren't we both pulled over?

You will have to ask the officer.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 36): Another example is the other side of the airport. Between Layton and College the speed limit is 35, south of College to Rawson it drops to 30 (turns to 2 lane just south of College), then south of Rawson to Drexel it turns to 25 (still 2 lane, still semi-residential), south of Drexel it raises to 30 again. Why the speed drop from Rawson to Drexel? Its the same road, same surface, same residential area (South Milwaukee/Oak Creek border)???

I am unfamiliar with the area and civic planning. Write your local representative/city council member.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 37): I can't count the number of times on a 65 mph road that I've had my cruise set between 65 and 70 and still have to slam on my brakes because somebody thinks that 60 is a safe speed.

60 on a road with a speed limit of 65 is absolutely safe. You are the unsafe driver for failing to recognize that there is a car in front of you until the point where you had to slam on your brakes to avoid a collision.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): When we have higher standards for licensing people then we can re-visit the "ridiculous" speed limits and perhaps we can trust drivers enough to uninstall the cameras.

Indeed. With all this talk from the folks above of "slamming on the brakes" and "swerving to avoid" a driver who is in front of them, the last thing we need is for these reckless drivers to LEGALLY be able to drive faster.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): What a concept huh? What people forget too is that had the camera been a cop the driver would have been ticketed anyways.

And the ticket from the cop comes with points. The camera tickets don't typically assess points (unfortunately). I would love to have all those idiots subsidize my insurance premiums.

As usual, I see plenty of arguments as to why certain speed limits should be raised rather than legitimate reasons for ignoring them. I agree that some drivers are safer 20 mph above the limit than others are 20 mph below the limit but how are the authorities expected to police that? Until we are all issued with individual speed limits for every stretch of road, how can we expect not to be busted if we break the posted limit?

Quoting WellHung (Reply 41): The actual speed limit never exceeds the posted speed limit no matter what the "flow of traffic" is

Admittedly my driving experience in the USA has been limited to NJ, NY State and NY City but I'd be very surprised if "matching the flow of traffic" was authorisation to break the limit. In the UK, it means you shouldn't cause a hold-up by driving way below the limit and you shouldn't terrorise everyone else by being aggressive, even below the limit.

On the other hand, driving right at the limit doesn't authorise you to block the outside lane, either.

Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 24): But now a speed camera. I would be very unhappy. Now will it only ticket you if you are going more than 8mph+ because many police officers dont even bother with giving tickets 8 over or below. A camera does not know your different circumstances. Sure it is great that it might keep police free to do more important things but I just dont agree with it. It should be illegal.

What circumstances are those? You shouldn't be going 10 over through an intersection anyway. Yellow lights are designed to match the speed limit of the road they're on.

Quoting Smcmac32msn (Reply 37): Then can you atleast do the speedlimit when I go past you like your standing still? I can't count the number of times on a 65 mph road that I've had my cruise set between 65 and 70 and still have to slam on my brakes because somebody thinks that 60 is a safe speed. I'm looking for stats I got in high school (drivers ed) that showed going slow was more dangerous to the flow of traffic than speeding.

Then perhaps you should consider a depth perception test. Because if you're doing 70 and they're doing 60 and you all of sudden have to "slam on your brakes" to avoid hitting them, then your depth perception is probably off. You shouldn't be slamming on your brakes coming up behind someone at only 10 mph more than them on an open highway.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 41): Indeed. With all this talk from the folks above of "slamming on the brakes" and "swerving to avoid" a driver who is in front of them, the last thing we need is for these reckless drivers to LEGALLY be able to drive faster.

Or they just need to stop whining about people who follow the law.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 38): And what I find equally as ridiculous is the claim that drivers can drive "safely" above the speed limit

Well, in all fairness there are roads with ridiculously low speed limits. For example, the main road outside of my apartment complex is a 4 lane divided road yet has parts where the speed limit is 35 mph. This road could SAFELY be travelled at 45 mph easily in the part where its 35 mph. But I watch my speed because at least once a week I see the cops out there with the speed trap set up.

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 19): I somehow don't see the issue. What's the problem in simply *not* driving over the speed limit, and *not* running the red light?

I don't see the issue either but if I figure it out, I'll be sure to let you know.   

Quoting JFK69 (Reply 31): But the real reason is for the crashes. I witnessed one no less than a month ago. A car was going fairly fast and then instead of going through a green/yellow...he slammed on the brakes causing the 18 wheeler to plow right into him. Not a pretty sight.

Makes me wonder if he was speeding, since well, the timing of the yellow light is based on the speed limit. If he was doing the speed limit and the light changed he should have A) still been able to clear the intersection at the speed he was doing and just roll on through the yellow light or B) slow down at a reasonable rate that would not result in the 18 wheeler behind him plowing into him.

Quoting David L (Reply 42): As usual, I see plenty of arguments as to why certain speed limits should be raised rather than legitimate reasons for ignoring them. I agree that some drivers are safer 20 mph above the limit than others are 20 mph below the limit but how are the authorities expected to police that? Until we are all issued with individual speed limits for every stretch of road, how can we expect not to be busted if we break the posted limit?

I think speed limits are set on the low side for safety because the people setting the speed limits know that drivers will speed. If the highway could safely handle cars driving 70, they probably set the speed limit at 60 because they know people will drive over the speed limit just because people do. There's one on ramp here in Daytona where the posted safe speed around the turn is 40 mph on the caution sign but I've gone 50+ mph around the turn without any problem at all.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 41): Heresay.

Your point? It's not like I heard from it from a friend of a friend who has a an acquaintance that did this. I heard it from the person itself.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 41): The actual speed limit never exceeds the posted speed limit no matter what the "flow of traffic" is,

A cop can not and usually will not give you a ticket if you're going the flow of traffic, be it 5mph or 20mph over what's posted. And if you run into an overzealous cop (and there's plenty of those) you can fight that ticket on court for flow of traffic.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 41): If you can't see far enough in front of you to avoid swerving from hitting someone or if you are travelling too fast to safely change lanes, you are the dangerous and reckless driver who is at fault.

I see far enough, plenty far. I got 20/15 vision, better than average. I am doing my part of obeying the law by passing on the LEFT lane. Interestingly I still got ticketed once for mildly speeding and driving on the left lane and not passing (only because there were no cars in miles to pass   ) Besides I can't help it if people are too damn stupid to understand this:  



And this guy couldn't have put it better: http://www.slowertraffickeepright.com/

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 44): Besides I can't help it if people are too damn stupid to understand this:

What about people who are "too damn stupid" to understand this? It doesn't take an aerospace engineer to figure out that "limit" means "do not exceed this".   




Whether you're speeding by a lot or speeding by just a few miles per hour over, you're still speeding. It's like being pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. However, we've come to believe "that most cops don't care" with "I can do get away with it all the time". Then people bitch when they do get caught because they don't get caught most of the time they do speed. It's utterly ridiculous. We have the same attitude with underage drinking.

Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 44): I see far enough, plenty far. I got 20/15 vision, better than average. I am doing my part of obeying the law by passing on the LEFT lane.

Having 20/15 vision and having depth perception are two different concepts. I know this quite well because I'm trying to fly for the Air Force and correcting my vision to 20/20 isn't a problem but I still have depth some perception problems which could keep me out of the cockpit.

Ask yourself what is the city doing with that money from these cameras?

(After Lockheed Martin or who ever installed and maintains the cameras take their huge share of the revenue) Does the city put that money into driver education, putting more cops out on the streets, improving crime labs, etc. Show me the statistics that show I'm safer overall. Show me where my insurance premiums go down because the intersections are now safer.

I don't believe in the cameras because it's a step closer to big brother watching me. Solve the core problems of why people do what they do.

It's just about revenue for the city to waste and Lockheed Martin or whoever the manufacturer is.

If an intersection is too dangerous with crashes from red light runners and speeders then fix the problem, don't just tax it.

Just my 2cents

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 43): Then perhaps you should consider a depth perception test. Because if you're doing 70 and they're doing 60 and you all of sudden have to "slam on your brakes" to avoid hitting them, then your depth perception is probably off.

Imagine if you will....... you're cruising down the road (interstate) between 65 and 70 and you're being passed by another car going a few mph faster than you..... meanwhile in front of you, you have grandpa george jetson jr. puttering along on his sunday drive (out a bit early) at 55, if you steer infront of the car passing you (holding their speed nicely) you force them to slam on their brakes..... meanwhile you're running up ggjj's tailpipe because he can't obey the road signage.... thats what we're talking about.... when there are multiple cars around and you're going slow...... YOU ARE A HAZARD. If 80-90% of cars are flowing at a steady pace, they aren't as big of a hazard as the 10-20% going slow and forcing the situation said above.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): AKA, however fast YOU feel like driving.

No, its however fast the road designers and traffic engineers design the road for NOT how fast the Insurance Coporation of BC or local municipalites "think" how fast you should go.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): Link? Source?

God, I love the internet. Soon as you disagree with something you always gotta put out the "Link? Source?" flag. You see Well Hung, in the real world (not the virtual world), you actually need to know first hand the point the poster is trying to make, so unless you've driven Hwy97, Hwy97c or Hwy10 in BC lately or 25th Ave in my hometown, you just wouldn't understand now would you? My points might not even be relevant to your part of the world, but it sure as hell is in my end. So don't preach to me like you know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to the revenue politics in my area ...  

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): That seems to be your favorite new phrase, however it is meaningless and seems to be an excuse for you to drive however fast you want. There are enough reckless drivers as is. Raising speed limits to the mythical number of "whatever ACDC8 feels the road was designed for" would encourage and increase the already rampant reckless behavior. That's nice that you feel you are too important to drive the speed limit. But my concern is for the innocent drivers who are put at risk by your dangerous and careless driving.

Reckless driving and speeding are two completely different things. Open your eyes on the road and you'll see more careless drivers (failing to signal, running yellow/red lights and stop signs, going down the wrong way of a one way street and just plain not paying attention) than drivers speeding and being careless. But people like you seem to have it burned in to your head that speeding is like second hand smoke and it'll kill you if you walk by it. I speed, not because I think its cool or because I think I'm a better driver or because I think I need to. I speed, and by no means excessivly, I'm talking about 10-20km/h. If the road conditions require that I slow down (weather, road conditions, traffic, etc.) I'll adust my speed accordingly.

Quoting WellHung (Reply 23): It is a failing of society to ignore the set speed limit or red lights for personal gain.

I think society has more severe problems than people speeding, but thanks for the laugh   

This whole issue is quite amusing. Theres a debate going on in the letters to the editor section of our local paper. This "safe" driver is labelling everyone who moves to the centerpoint of an intersection to make a left turn as reckless and careless drivers. There have been numerous responses (including some from ICBC and the Ministry of Transportaion) that, he is in fact incorrect. But he, as is a certain member in this discussion, is adament that he is in the right and everyone else (including ICBC and the Ministry of Transportaion) don't know what we're talking about and are all reckless drivers.

Im sure we have had this technology in the UK for a while now. If there is one Government who can see the use of such cameras to rob the public then it will be the UK Government.

I totally disagree with speed cameras. They dont help at all rather than fleece cash off the public. There was an article in the papers not long ago about temporary roadworks on this strech of road, i think down south, and it was hidden behind a blind bend and trees. The usual limit was 60 but it had been dropped to 40, and the speed camera was iliterally metres after the signs telling you to slow from 60 to 40. So inevitabley thousands of drivers got caught and this camera racked in nearly a million quid in fines i think.

Im pretty sure the UK Goverment say the procedure for putting a camera up on a stretch of road is if there have been more than 4 serious accidents in the same place, which is rubbish. I live 8 miles from Manchester, and on my way i go through 5 speed cameras, (soon to 6). Crazy. And i have lived and driven this route since me and my parents moved to the house 10 years ago before the cameras and i have never seen any accidents in those places. They are there purely for cash. People slam on for them, then speed up straght afterwards.

I believe with Akiss20, when he says going slower is actually more dangerous. I dont think its law in the States, but over here you can only overtake on the right, undertaking on the left is punishable by fine and points i believe. So if your travelling at 70 (the limit) and someone in the first lane is doing 50 it causes all sorts of probems and its then that people start moving out and potentially causing accidents. I hate speeders, but i hate people who drive below the limit.

Incidentally, my dad is in the police force, and quite unbelieveable he has been told that if he can 'can you please slow down and adhere to speed cameras'. How pathetic is that. Apparenly the procedure they have to go through to cancel the ticket is too lenghy and costly. What a load of rubbish.