[geeks] Stuff fo' sale

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mike Meredith wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:54:35 -0500 (CDT), Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> [Missing attribution]
>>>> I'm sure each "speeder cam" is really a source of revenue,
>> That's because they were put into place to be a revenue source, rather
>> than to increase public safety.
> 
> My instinctive reaction on hearing people complain about speed cameras
> being used for revenue raising is 'So?'. After all speeding is against
> the law so motorists who break the law have no leg to stand on when they
> start complaining.

We aren't just talking about speed cameras, and speeding is a
controversial issue in the first place.

If safety were the real concern, then the authorities would stop
focusing on speed and start focusing on road and vehicle design, driver
training, and driver behavior.  All of those kill far more people every
year than speeding ever has.

Even if they cameras were always used properly, it still is a misuse of
public funds in most cases so far.

> Yes there's sometimes issues with the accuracy of speed cameras, and yes
> there's sometimes particularly tricky placement of camera. But if you
> don't want to get fined, don't speed!

The law is not perfect or absolute.

Lot's of illegal things are not immoral or unethical, and even good laws
can be made abusive.

> Of course reducing fatal accidents at red lights isn't the only reason
> to stop people jumping them. Non-fatal accidents occur rather more
> frequently and cost quite a bit in terms of disruption. And I'm sure
> those who've had a nasty shock from a near miss with a light jumper
> would be happy if the jumper were due to get a nastygram.

In many cases, *ALL* accidents have increased when the cameras were
installed.

It's never proven to be useful in general.

An increase in driver training would be worth a million cameras...z

> At least in the UK, reports (at least one by the government and another
> by independent researchers) indicate that speed cameras *are* improving
> safety.
> 
> Of course it could be the UK is doing something more effective than
> others for a change :)

Or it could be the statistics are created by people with a vested
interest in making them say things are improving, even if they aren't.

The UK might also have different traffic patterns than other countries,
so I don't really think you can make an overall comparison anyway.
You'd have to compared individual intersections with effectively similar
counterparts.

For example, in the US most of the intersections where you have a high
accident rate are poorly designed or overcrowded, and speed cameras
won't fix that.




> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks