A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
Checkout these related communities:
It's just oppressing the people for profit. These systems fucking suck.
The problem with issuing automatic tickets is that they don't really change behaviours in drivers who don't care anyway.
I received my first and only speeding ticket over 20 years ago, but having to waste half a day going to a downtown court was more than enough to have me driving like a grandma ever since.
But someone like my wife, who's received multiple automated tickets, simply isn't inconvenienced by it. I pay the ticket, and she drives as she always has.
If these automated enforcement cameras resulted in drivers having to take a course for a few weekends, or lose their car for a week, it might annoy them enough to stop the behaviour. And the penalties should increase if someone continues to break the law.
But..... additional revenue is always good, assuming it's going to programs to improve road safety or to build out active transportation infrastructure :)
In the UK we have a points system and if you get enough points you lose your licence and have to reapply. This was introduced because the wealthy didn't really care about getting tickets if it was just a small (relative to their wealth) fine. You can get points for any automatic fines from speeding, running red lights, illegal U-turns, etc, plus any court issued fines.
In the first two years of getting your licence, you have a lower threshold.
Speed cameras are generally signposted or painted in yellow, although there are some speed traps or police patrols which might catch you too. Often, you are not sure if the cameras work but people will slow down just in case. There's also average speed cameras on some roads which completely stop speeding.
You could argue that some people will still drive without a licence but I there's not many who would do that.
I have noticed in my driving lifetime (20 years) that drivers have slowed down, especially in urban areas. Roads in urban areas have been designed to decrease speeds though which probably had more of an effect - more curves, tighter roads, prioritising buses/pedestrians/cyclists, etc. Plus we've always had more roundabouts which have been proven to lower speeds.
Of course, we have a centralised driving licence authority and not the state differences you guys have.
In the UK we have a points system and if you get enough points you lose your licence and have to reapply. This was introduced because the wealthy didn't really care about getting tickets if it was just a small (relative to their wealth) fine. You can get points for any automatic fines from speeding, running red lights, illegal U-turns, etc, plus any court issued fines.
In the US we also have a points system, which means that the wealthy hire lawyers for traffic offenses to plea-bargain them down to zero-point ones.
Also, criminal offenses can only be charged by a human (because the accused has the right to confront their accuser and there's nobody to confront if it's a machine), so the automated systems only ever issue civil "infractions" with no points.
In the UK we have a points system and if you get enough points you lose your licence and have to reapply.
We have this in Canada, too, but it's a totally broken system.
As an example, you'd need to flee the scene of an accident (hit and run) and not stop for an officer who is flagging you down to earn enough demerit point to get a warning letter. Seriously. Exceeding the speed limit by 50km/h will also get you a letter.
But here's the catch: automated traffic enforcement doesn't punish the driver - at all. Not insurance impact or anything. It only penalizes the person who owns the car through a fine. This is likely another reason why it doesn't change behaviour, especially when it doesn't impact insurance rates.
A person being pulled over for speeding by an officer will more than likely have their premiums go up as a result.
Interesting. Here, with automated cameras, the letter also goes to the registered keeper of the car. There used to be a way out where you could say I don't remember who was driving, but you'd both have to be on the insurance for it to work. Now I think your have to name the driver and can't not name them, or something along those lines. From memory, somebody took it to court saying you shouldn't be compelled to incriminate yourself but think they lost.
Most cameras now though are forward facing so take a photo of the driver too. You can't get out of that!
To be fair, the owner should know who's driving at that time and they need to be on the insurance. Maybe this is different here because every driver is named on the insurance for each car. Am I right in thinking it's different there? If you named someone who wasn't insured on your car, you're letting someone drive your car without insurance which is also an offence. You have to pay for each person so it's not like you're going to have multiple random drivers.
Most cameras now though are forward facing so take a photo of the driver too. You can’t get out of that!
I don't recall if her ticket(s) showed the front, but I think it would still be a challenge for the courts to prove the ID of the driver.
To be fair, the owner should know who’s driving at that time and they need to be on the insurance.
For sure. This still applies.
But what I'm saying is that let's say you have a single family car for you, your spouse, and two teenagers. If anyone in your family is driving that car and gets an automated speeding ticket, you (the owner of the car) would get the ticket. There's no deterrent effect for the actual driver.
In this sense, being pulled over by an actual police officer is likely to have more of an impact than these cameras. However, good luck generating nearly a fraction of the revenue using street cops. That's where automated cameras really shine.
If these automated enforcement cameras resulted in drivers having to take a course for a few weekends, or lose their car for a week, it might annoy them enough to stop the behaviour. And the penalties should increase if someone continues to break the law.
For the record, I'm 100% opposed to these automated enforcement cameras on "not creating an Orwellian panopticon" grounds (as well as "the accused has the right to confront their accuser" grounds, but frankly that's a distant second).
That said, I love the idea of driving bans for traffic offenses, even relatively minor ones, because the more we force people to experience being carless the more political pressure there will be to make the alternatives decent.
If drivers are routinely speeding on a particular segment of street, it means it was built wrong (e.g. too straight, lanes too wide, too much clear zone, etc.) and needs traffic calming.
Cities would be far safer without cars.
