Speed camera
- Thread starter FallOf81
- Start date
Cedar Rapids was forced to stop ticketing for 2 years due to lawsuits. What was interesting is they still monitored the speed. The results...speeds went up during the time everyone knew they would not get a ticket BUT actual traffic related accidents declined. Once they started issuing tickets again, speeds declined and traffic accidents increased. Hmmmm....
Drivers being inconsistent with their speed creates others to have to do the same which creates collisions. You likely had people get used to speeding, and then couldn't handle it when others slowed down for the conditions etc.
I'm all for human darwinism so if someone wants to develop the habits of having to save 5-10 minutes (speeding doesn't cut travel time by much at all unless it's hundreds of miles and only creates faster wear and tear and fuel consumption on the vehicle) and take themselves out by going off the freeway when the conditions change, so be it as long as their behavior doesn't injure or kill anyone else.
- Jun 20, 2006
- 38,283
- 22,554
- 113
I think that we as a society generally agree it is acceptable to speed to a certain degree. However, as someone who speeds most of the time, I disagree that everyone speeds because I get stuck behind them ALL THE ******* TIME.
I don’t agree. The only reason I speed on occasion is because I’m going to get run off of the road by everyone around me going 10-20mph over and weaving in and out of traffic like it’s a videogame, usually with no signals.
The whole argument with speed cameras and the like is this: people who break the law don’t like having consequences. Enough people have decided they think laws to regulate how fast they drive shouldn’t be laws, so they just ignore it and say “screw you” to everyone else on the road. And the critical mass of people following the law is crushed by people who are reckless, so the city or county eventually gets exhausted of all the ridiculous lawsuits by people who are never going to change their behavior and takes the cameras down.
I’d like to see these cameras pretty much everywhere, and also add citations for following distance at high speeds and unsafe merges. When I get to a place of general safety between me and the car in front and then someone else merges in front of me and just about hits my front bumper, that person should be getting pulled over. Bumper to bumper traffic at 70-75mph is incredibly unsafe. The state of driving on all roads, especially the interstates, is absolutely terrible. Driving 100 miles roundtrip to commute to work, I see it daily. We have a ton of menaces out there. It’s too much to be policed by people. I would like to see the standard for who can get and keep a driver’s license be raised by a ton, but again, there are too many people who are terrible drivers unwilling to change, so it would create some sort of national riot if they ever had any consequences for endangering those around them. So those of us trying to just get through the day end up compromising and playing reactive driver to the 75-80% that are just gonna do whatever they want, no care about anyone else.
Yep…I’ve never gotten one. Total of one speeding ticket ever, given by a real person, about 15 years ago for going 5 over on I-80 in western Iowa. No warning. Middle of the day on a weekday, officer must have been bored. Was on my way to a job interview, thankfully I built in some extra time so still wasn’t late. I paid it and moved on.
This is fun and has gotten me a couple of times. Always park right where the speed drops from 35 to 25 and nail everyone going 36 at that spot.
www.muscatineiowa.gov
ATE Mobile Speed Enforcement | Muscatine, IA - Official Website
This line made me smile as I had a great suggestion of where the mobile ATE should be placed.This is fun and has gotten me a couple of times. Always park right where the speed drops from 35 to 25 and nail everyone going 36 at that spot.
ATE Mobile Speed Enforcement | Muscatine, IA - Official Website
If you have a suggestion for where the mobile ATE should be placed, you may make a request using the Muscatine Connect.
This is just a passive revenue source. It's not about safety.
I would have liked to see the original bill get passed, but this should help
www.kcci.com
This statement right here is why they should go away. Most of these have zero to do with safety.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, of Mason City, said she didn't agree with that part of the bill.
"I would think if the city is using the ATE (automatic traffic enforcement), they should be the ones to decide what to do with that money,"
Iowa House passes bill that would regulate use of speed cameras
The bill would require cities and counties to apply for a permit to the Department of Transportation to have speed cameras.
www.kcci.com
This statement right here is why they should go away. Most of these have zero to do with safety.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, of Mason City, said she didn't agree with that part of the bill.
"I would think if the city is using the ATE (automatic traffic enforcement), they should be the ones to decide what to do with that money,"
Now off to the governor. Can't wait to see how the DOT handles these
www.siouxlandproud.com
Iowa Senate passes traffic camera regulations
A week after the Iowa House passed through an amendment to regulate automated traffic cameras, the Iowa Senate sent it off to the governor.
www.siouxlandproud.com
I would have liked to see the original bill get passed, but this should help
Iowa House passes bill that would regulate use of speed cameras
The bill would require cities and counties to apply for a permit to the Department of Transportation to have speed cameras.
This statement right here is why they should go away. Most of these have zero to do with safety.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, of Mason City, said she didn't agree with that part of the bill.
"I would think if the city is using the ATE (automatic traffic enforcement), they should be the ones to decide what to do with that money,"
I like that part of it. There are a lot of small towns starting to pop these ups.
I can't disagree with this argument more. A device that is designed to enforce speed limits has nothing to do with safety? That is wild you could think that. Are there places that have decided to create "speed traps" as others call them, sure. How can you call them speed traps, though? If you just drive under the limit, you won't have a problem.I would have liked to see the original bill get passed, but this should help
Iowa House passes bill that would regulate use of speed cameras
The bill would require cities and counties to apply for a permit to the Department of Transportation to have speed cameras.
This statement right here is why they should go away. Most of these have zero to do with safety.
Rep. Sharon Steckman, of Mason City, said she didn't agree with that part of the bill.
"I would think if the city is using the ATE (automatic traffic enforcement), they should be the ones to decide what to do with that money,"
Based on how lopsided the vote was in the Legislature, I'm obviously in the small minority that believes there are too many menaces on the road. A bunch of us got passed on I-35 South last week by someone going around 100 and using the right shoulder as a lane, right before entering the construction zone. Based on the lack of patrol vehicles I passed during the next few miles, I'm assuming that person got away scot-free. A camera could have helped here. Also, the fines for speeding are ridiculously low. You can drive 30mph over the limit and your fine would only be $150. No wonder that everyone drives recklessly.
Now off to the governor. Can't wait to see how the DOT handles these
Iowa Senate passes traffic camera regulations
A week after the Iowa House passed through an amendment to regulate automated traffic cameras, the Iowa Senate sent it off to the governor.
Hopefully they handle it the way they wanted to handle it before the court blocked them a few years ago.
At very least the last thing we need is every little town dotting the interstates and other major highways exacting their own little troll toll.
Honestly if anything this bill didn't go far enough. It restricts the money to certain uses (police and transportation infrastructure) but that spending is most of a city's budget anyway and spending can be shifted around. Should require that most of the money goes into a state fund if a town wants one.
This came up multiple years and didn't pass. I think we're starting to see signs some small towns were pushing it too far and thus the response from the legislature this time.
That being said, a lot of "speed" issues are actually design issues. Roadways can be designed better to discourage speed and this works much better than speed limits because people tend to drive to the comfortability of that speed regardless of the posted limit. Revenue-generating speed traps incentivize keeping the problematic design.
