Warning of speed traps protected by free speech

[andrewbares]

People like you should not be allowed to drive!

Sadly this almost doesn't happen in Ontario...nobody cares about other drivers :( But when i was driving in Europe i noticed it a lot more often. Good people there!

If good people are people who speed and endanger others, sure......

[Kirkburn]

Do any of you (not surprisingly European) who are more worried about the 'unpunished' crime really think that ticket changes behavior or creates safer drivers? Especially when they aren't really targeting specific bad behaviors? (ie not all speeding is 'reckless', in fact not flowing with traffic is far more dangerous - which is really what most of these traps boil down to - a big game of red rover)

What has being European got to do with anything?

I think that directly attempting to let people avoid being caught for illegal behaviour is wrong - that's the problem here. It's not about whether the speed limit itself is reasonable, or whether particularly reckless driving was going on (though those are reasonable, but separate, discussions - but not one best judged while in the middle of actually driving). Acting as a lookout for the police, in order to prevent people from being caught engaging in illegal behaviour, is the main problem. It's a bad precedent (and also a reason for disliking those speed camera location apps), encouraging and legitimising bad behaviour.

[Dashel]

So should radio stations be fined/jailed too that warn drivers of traps? I think that example highlights the first amendment issue more than when mere individuals express that right (and follow the driver 'rules of the road'. I dont know of any car clubs where this isn't practiced). Why do you think there are two 'rulebooks' in conflict here? Why did you choose the state over your fellow drivers?

I think thats what bugs me most about the proponents, since again you admit its simply the legality, not the outcome, that matters to you. They really think its done 'for safety'. Its not a coincidence that the term 'nanny state' originiated in the UK and have polluted their english speaking Canadian cousins as well. Maybe its your crappy roads but you really have a warped view of speeding, which is simply exceeding the posted limit. Driving in response to changing conditions is what makes a good driver. I don't need an arbitrary, state run gotcha zone to make 'me' better out there (15 years accident free)

Don't even get me started on cameras, they simply are not sporting, and more importantly, don't work. Just like speed traps. You really want to double down on an authoritarian cockfight huh, no radar/laser/cam detectors either? You gonna take my radar diminishing bra or flash license covers next too?

[Growled Member]

Anyways, fines and tickets are all such a load of BS money making schemes....

I agree, although the cop didn't make the law. One of the stupidest things ever invented.

[Rippleman]

speeding is speeding. I hate tickets as much as the next guy, but in the end, it is THE DRIVERS OWN FAULT if they get a ticket. Don't want a ticket? Don't speed.... VERY VERY simple....

[Kirkburn]

So should radio stations be fined/jailed too that warn drivers of traps? I think that example highlights the first amendment issue more than when mere individuals express that right (and follow the driver 'rules of the road'. I dont know of any car clubs where this isn't practiced). Why do you think there are two 'rulebooks' in conflict here? Why did you choose the state over your fellow drivers?

I think thats what bugs me most about the proponents, since again you admit its simply the legality, not the outcome, that matters to you. They really think its done 'for safety'. Its not a coincidence that the term 'nanny state' originiated in the UK and have polluted their english speaking Canadian cousins as well. Maybe its your crappy roads but you really have a warped view of speeding, which is simply exceeding the posted limit. Driving in response to changing conditions is what makes a good driver. I don't need an arbitrary, state run gotcha zone to make 'me' better out there (15 years accident free)

Don't even get me started on cameras, they simply are not sporting, and more importantly, don't work. Just like speed traps. You really want to double down on an authoritarian cockfight huh, no radar/laser/cam detectors either? You gonna take my radar diminishing bra or flash license covers next too?

The problem is simple people setting out to prevent others from being caught doing something illegal. So yes, I would not agree with radio stations warning drivers of speed cameras.

Speed limits are intended to be maximums, not advised actual speeds. Driving conditions should let you drive up to the speed limit, not over it. I am obviously not saying that all speed limits are correct and perfect, they are almost certainly not (for example, the 70mph limit on motorways is long-outdated). But it is not up to the driver in the middle of driving to decide the limit is too slow. You do not know what is around the next corner, or what hazard might appear - even if it is a road you frequently drive (and frequency of driving is never a good reason to decide for yourself that you should be allowed to drive faster).

Speed cameras are one of the current possible methods to stop people from speeding. And stopping people from speeding is important because: 1). humans and machines are not infallible. 2). you're never as good a driver as you think you are. 3). speeding does not only affect the driver, but everyone else around. I sure as hell want my state to help protect me from other people's failures. 4). other options include tracking people's cars, or wasting money on a ridiculous number of police cars simply driving around. I'd rather the money were spent on automated detection, that doesn't track individual people. Hence, speed cameras.

And leave out the stupid attacks on 'nanny states' and our apparently 'crappy roads'. The former is simply annoying, the latter makes no bloody sense. No sensible person speeds on crappy roads.

Finally: yes, please lose the detectors and flash plates. Because they are about avoiding being caught, which is plainly not moral. You don't get to decide to opt out of a law.

Meanwhile, I support satnavs warning users of speed limits. Not speed cameras, speed limits - because that is not about avoiding being caught, that is about being warned when you're driving over the limit anywhere, essentially a subset of the function of the speedometer.

[Dashel]

Well, luckily we do have the right here. So, what about my main question? Still seems like you are still of a pretty authoritarian bent, since you freely admit there are speed limits that are 'dated' in your parlance. Do you deny that there are two rulebooks, arbitrary law and what is actually practiced by drivers on the road? Why do you side with the state over your fellow drivers? The law isn't moral to begin with, so any advantage is completely fair. It gets even sillier that you pretend its acting as a lookout instead of a warning 'not' to speed, its quite hypocritical.

Me flashing my lights in that case is no different than telling the masked guy walking into the bank to just go home. Aiding and embedding indeed.

No one uses the speed limit as the 'maximum' and you know it. So you have behavior that is 90 degrees from the rules, and you still side with arbitrary enforcement. Let me guess, there shouldn't be a leeway over the limit for any reason either right? At least here its customary for a min 5mph variance for calibration and other factors.

I mean, all I can picture from your passioned defense is a charicture of some jackass doing 80 in a school zone, which really has nothing to do with the discussion.

[Kirkburn]

Well, luckily we do have the right here. So, what about my main question? Still seems like you are still of a pretty authoritarian bent, since you freely admit there are speed limits that are 'dated' in your parlance. Do you deny that there are two rulebooks, arbitrary law and what is actually practiced by drivers on the road? Why do you side with the state over your fellow drivers? The law isn't moral to begin with, so any advantage is completely fair. It gets even sillier that you pretend its acting as a lookout instead of a warning 'not' to speed, its quite hypocritical.

Me flashing my lights in that case is no different than telling the masked guy walking into the bank to just go home. Aiding and embedding indeed.

No one uses the speed limit as the 'maximum' and you know it. So you have behavior that is 90 degrees from the rules, and you still side with arbitrary enforcement. Let me guess, there shouldn't be a leeway over the limit for any reason either right? At least here its customary for a min 5mph variance for calibration and other factors.

I mean, all I can picture from your passioned defense is a charicture of some jackass doing 80 in a school zone, which really has nothing to do with the discussion.

I have an authoritarian bent because I want people to obey speed limits? What kind of ridiculousness is that? I may not agree with certain speed limits, but that is not a reason to break them. Individual road users do not have the full picture, and there are better ways of dealing with it (i.e. talk to your local government, at whatever level).

How do you not get the concept that my issue here is about intentionally allowing people to avoid being caught. He was not attempting to prevent people from speeding in general, and that is a fact - the whole point was warning about speed traps.

It's certainly not the same as telling a burglar to go home, because there's nothing about preventing someone from being caught. Telling them to go home is akin to telling people to stop speeding wherever they are. If you only told a burglar to stop because there was a policeman nearby ... that would be equivalent.

And yes, of course there is leeway around the speed limit. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you must stick absolutely to the speed limit, with no black and white. Overtaking and hitting 80mph, fine. Driving at 80mph all the time, not okay, regardless of whether everyone else is doing it. It doesn't suddenly become legal when a large group do something (see also looting and rioting, and no I am not saying they are equivalently bad).

[Dashel]

How do you know they are speeding again? You can magically divine they are exceeding the limit across the divide? A flash is a universal sign for caution ahead, the inevitable hard braking from traps alone is reason to warn other drivers.

You still haven't addressed my key questions, the reason 'large groups do it' and/or why the enforcement of such laws are in such disagreement with the driving community at large.

[Kirkburn]

How do you know they are speeding again? You can magically divine they are exceeding the limit across the divide? A flash is a universal sign for caution ahead, the inevitable hard braking from traps alone is reason to warn other drivers.

It's beyond reasonable belief that he would merely be cautioning people that others may suddenly break. Here's my rationale:

Generally only people who were speeding would suddenly brake. If there weren't people speeding, cautioning people about people potentially braking wouldn't be necessary. So logically, there were people speeding. So unless he was somehow only flashing people who weren't speeding, which is incredibly unlikely, it doesn't hold up. Even if he was warning everyone, that would include people who are speeding, thus allowing them to avoid being caught.

As it is, much of the point of the discussion so far was based on the idea that the intent was simply 'to warn people of a speed camera ahead'. I don't particular care for the specific frame of mind the guy was in, because this discussion is more general than that.

Please note: I am not denying that speed cameras can cause accidents because of people driving badly. Then again, that's people ... driving badly. I'd rather there were actually methods of detecting people breaking the speed limit, than not. And, as I keep having to say, my opinion on whether speed cameras are good or bad is not actually relevant to the issue, because it's a really technical/legal matter.

You still haven't addressed my key questions, the reason 'large groups do it' and/or why the enforcement of such laws are in such disagreement with the driving community at large.

Why large groups do it is not relevant. Mass breakage of laws does not nullify a law, and I've already mentioned that I obviously don't think all existing speed limits are correct.

You would find that most people agree to having speed limits in the first place, of course. Whether the specific speed limit in force on a specific road is the correct one is far, far more varied in response (e.g. depending on whether you live on that road). And again, irrelevant and unanswerable.

[Dashel]

What large groups do is quite relevant when most drivers don't follow the limits on a general basis. At that point you are just fishing. I just can't get behind any enforcement of laws that makes large swaths of people criminals for reasons we no longer even remember. Its simply not being a good shepard to the herd. Maybe our traps are just that ill concieved compared to yours. We don't see many enforcing school zones other high pedestrian areas. Its always the you-know-who local municipalities sniping people on the highway. How else can an outfit in a poor section of the city afford so many brand new Chargers?

When you start debating probable cause between unassociated motorists, then l'd love to hear a legal take on that. My assumption is it would get messy quick.

[Kirkburn]

What large groups do is quite relevant when most drivers don't follow the limits on a general basis. At that point you are just fishing. I just can't get behind any enforcement of laws that makes large swaths of people criminals for reasons we no longer even remember. Its simply not being a good shepard to the herd. Maybe our traps are just that ill concieved compared to yours. We don't see many enforcing school zones other high pedestrian areas. Its always the you-know-who local municipalities sniping people on the highway. How else can an outfit in a poor section of the city afford so many brand new Chargers?

When you start debating probable cause between unassociated motorists, then l'd love to hear a legal take on that. My assumption is it would get messy quick.

Yeah, your experience of speed cameras is not going to be equivalent to mine - I'm in the UK, for example. If speed cameras are being placed in the 'wrong' places where you are, well, that's a problem with the local enforcement agencies. Although, even if they were solely for profit, you would still place them at locations where people are speeding - they're never catching people who aren't speeding.

Personally, I've only seen speed cameras at pretty appropriate locations (speed cameras near hazardous areas, average speed cameras by long roadworks, etc).

Of course we remember why speed limits are what they are. In built-up areas it's 30, because that's a relatively safe speed for pedestrians (and 20 in areas of particular vulnerability, like schools). On motorways, it's 70, because (among other reasons) that was judged a safe speed for cars in general - potentially it could be updated to 80 with our modern technology, but the reasons 70 was chosen is hardly lost to the mists of time - in the UK it was only in 1966: http://en.wikipedia....mph_speed_limit

[StrikedOut]

To me the best (and least utilised) method of controling the speed is the use of the signs that shows both the speed limit and flashes your current speed. Gives you the nudge if you are a little over without the points and fine that goes with it.

As for the speed limits themselves, here in the UK I have yet to see a road where I disagree (does not include the motorway where I think the speed limit for a car can be raised to 80mph). The built up roads are 30 as there is a 1 in 10 chance of a fatality should someone get hit, this raises to 9 in 10 at 40mph. Bring it down to 20 around schools is common sense.

The use of speed cameras however is different. In Southampton we seem to have them in the most irrelevent places. One is after a pedestrian crossing on a very long and busy dual carrige way which is limited to 30 due to the homes built on it. Would make sense if it was before the crossing as people would be slow before the crossing, not as an after thought aproaching it.

So yep, I agree that we should be looking out for each other, if you can see that someone is a little over then give them the nudge to slow a little. If they are just plain dangerous, let them get caught!

[Dan~]

^ The speed camera outside Ikea is pointless, it's always jammed packed with traffic :p

[Sranshaft]

Speed cameras / traps are, IMO, completely revenue-generating devices. They do not deter speeding and can become road hazards; with everyone either tapping their brake just before the camera causing traffic backups and in worse case scenarios, accidents. What I don't get is they aren't actually targeting speeders. I could - and do to the best of my abilities - drive under the speed limit the entire time I'm on the road but if I happen to nudge my speedometer over the limit for that brief second I'm within the camera's ranged I'm fined for speeding. You know, **** happens, and I have a million others things my attention needs to be focused on from P-platers fresh behind the wheel not knowing how to merge at 100 kph to the downright atrocious state of Australia's roadways. Sometimes I'm going to drift above that speed limit, should I be penalized for that 30 second window where I notice I'm above the limit to when I coast back to down to it?

If the government really wanted to curb speeding / reduce the hazards that come with speeding why not implement a government mandated, electronically controlled throttle governor? Where the car's engine is in contact with the posted speed limit signs and automatically adjusts the maximum speed the car can go. For those times when passing is a necessity, the driver has a 30 second window where the car will be allowed to accelerate above the speed limit by 10 kph before being restricted to the speed limit again.

Yes, I know I'm venturing into 5th Element stuff here but let's not kid ourselves in believing the government is doing all of this for our well being. Traffic fines are what fills the coffers of many governments and many wouldn't be able to run without them.

[andrewbares]

I could - and do to the best of my abilities - drive under the speed limit the entire time I'm on the road but if I happen to nudge my speedometer over the limit for that brief second I'm within the camera's ranged I'm fined for speeding. You know, **** happens, and I have a million others things my attention needs to be focused on from P-platers fresh behind the wheel not knowing how to merge at 100 kph to the downright atrocious state of Australia's roadways. Sometimes I'm going to drift above that speed limit, should I be penalized for that 30 second window where I notice I'm above the limit to when I coast back to down to it?

So what is the alternative? Have a cop drive behind you for one hour and then ticket you based on your overall driving experience? Lol you're ridiculous. A speed camera is the same as a cop sitting there. You would still be ticketed even if you drove faster only at that section.

[Dashel]

Which is why I'm still scratching my head when Kirkburn says that there should be leeway on limits, but wants it enforced without regard for that or bothering to look at the big picture.

[Kirkburn]

Which is why I'm still scratching my head when Kirkburn says that there should be leeway on limits, but wants it enforced without regard for that or bothering to look at the big picture.

Yeah, because 'the big picture' is something I totally ignored in all my posts. *sigh*

• Allowing cars to go 10% over the limit is fine. Speed cameras don't act until you're over this anyway.
  
• Overtaking is an okay-ish reason to go over a little, briefly. But it doesn't mean you should overtake someone already going at the speed limit.
  
• You shouldn't be overtaking by speed cameras anyway - they shouldn't be in that kind of location.
  
• Not all speed limits are perfect - but that is not a reason to break them. You do not choose when to obey a law.
  

I want speed limits enforced because that's the point of them.

[Noir Angel]

I've never seen any evidence at all that speed cameras actually reduce the amount of speeding being done in England. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for speeding laws being enforced but people are kidding themselves. Speed cameras are about netting the police easy money without having to make an arrest.

[Kirkburn]

I've never seen any evidence at all that speed cameras actually reduce the amount of speeding being done in England. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for speeding laws being enforced but people are kidding themselves. Speed cameras are about netting the police easy money without having to make an arrest.

Consider this (and I'm pretty sure I already mentioned this): is they were solely about netting money, they would be placed in places where that would be done efficiently. That would also be places where many people are speeding, thus somewhat serving their purpose. And of course they reduce the amount of speeding by some amount. They might not be the best method (and I'm certainly not arguing that), but they can and will do their job when reasonably placed (and when people don't subvert their purpose by tracking and warning of specific locations). I'd certainly much rather police spent their time on things that can't be automated.

[andrewbares]

I've never seen any evidence at all that speed cameras actually reduce the amount of speeding being done in England. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for speeding laws being enforced but people are kidding themselves. Speed cameras are about netting the police easy money without having to make an arrest.

If they were placed everywhere (which in my city they practically are, there's ones that are within 1-2 miles of each other at lots of the stoplights), they are definitely going to reduce speeding! If people are constantly being watched for speeding, they will be forced to slow down.

Sure they're making money, but the speeder is the one choosing to pay the state that money. It's his choice to break the law. "Not realizing" he was going that fast isn't an excuse, you're driving something that can kill someone, you are responsible for your actions.

[devHead]

I completely agree. It's your own decision to speed, and by doing so you're endangering others (YES you are, even if you're a Nascar super-auto cross expert space ship g-force racer).

And it's your own fault if you slowly rise above the speed limit or don't realize you're speeding. You're driving a VEHICLE on a PUBLIC ROAD, you are responsible for your actions. You could kill someone, so you better be aware of what you're doing.

Now do I sometimes speed? Yep, but I go with the flow of the traffic (unless they're going more than 10 mph over). People typically drive 5 mph over, and that's became acceptable (heck, speed cameras only catch you for going 11 mph over). People who excessively speed need to be punished.

I have to say I'm in the same boat. Drivers here in Bulgaria who speed are these tough mafia guys with their huge SUVs and they drive dangerously fast, passing people, cutting in front of you. They make you have to slam on your brakes because they have to pass but decide to do so before they realize they don't have enough time to get where they want. So they cut you off. Then when they get the chance they barrel ahead at 160 km/h in a 90 zone. I'm sorry but those nutjobs doing that in the other direction are not going to get a warning from me if i know there's a speed trap in their direction. It doesn't really matter; the guy driving 60 km/h in his beat up Lada will flash the idiot and he'll stop driving like a stark-raving maniac just in time to get by without getting caught. But that's Bulgaria. I've always been of the mind that warning speeders of a speed trap up ahead is an obstruction of justice.

[Dashel]

So have there been any challenges then on your side of the pond since its pretty clear we have a different legal interpretation over here?