I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US. And while the idea of rewarding good drivers sounds nice, I have to imagine large automated fines would be a better approach, at least in the US. If a car is zooming down a freeway at 90mph while gliding across lanes with no blinker, why not send that driver a $5000 fine? We have the technology! And it will reduce that kind of insanely dangerous driving.
"It's very plainly about control more than human life."
You're asserting that a system that does not exist, and would save human lives if it did exist, could not exist for that provable, measurable reason, but instead can only exist for the paranoid reason you've asserted with no evidence. Do you see the flaw in that logic?
These systems often fail some of our rights tests. For example, it’s hard to “face your accuser” when it’s a camera. I believe speed cams failed for similar reasons in Utah. I do see red light cams in Chicago. I wonder if that’s because they are more politically accepted there. I’m not sure.
Maybe I’m wrong about why they went away in Utah. This resource says… [1]
> In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on the use of photo radar -- specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for-profit companies -- that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an "effective ban" on photo enforcement.
There are reports of them being unconstitutional but they might not be credible.[2]
We had loads of red light cameras where I am, and while there are still some around the vast majority were removed because they caused drivers who otherwise would have safely blown a yellow to jam on the brakes, much to the chagrin of the person behind them who suddenly had less braking distance.
And yeah, people should leave more room, but they don't. So you get enforcement camera-induced accidents, thus defeating the purpose.
The issue is intentionally shortened yellow lights, because the operator often has no incentive to reduce the accident rate but a perverse incentive to increase the violation rate.
There are a thousand ways to get kicks in life without directly endangering the lives of other human beings. Some people like skydiving and rock climbing. I like to do lots of drugs and have adventurous sex. But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.
> But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.
Or an American. My point which I mistakenly thought was self apparent is that this attitude is pretty ingrained as a core premise of American pop culture.
I think you've watched way too many Fast and Furious movies. They're fiction, not a documentary. When Paul Walker actually did die from driving too fast, the universal reaction was sadness, yes, but appalled that he'd be so irresponsible, especially putting other people in danger.
Sure, we can make a list of thorny questions for literally any proposed change to any law or system. Ah, the wonders of rhetoric! But I'm going to bet that these problems can be largely overcome, as most problems are overcome for most basic functions of civilization.
Well, except that every implemented speed camera system definitely not only hasn’t solved those problems, but also doesn’t seem to contribute to actual safety either.
You speak as if no better system could ever be implemented so we should just throw our hands in the air. I thought these threads were full of engineers.
Keep in mind your fellow commenters are also drivers who have an inherent bias to maintain the status quo. If anything, they're probably BMW and Tesla drivers, too...
Does it matter? Either the owner authorized the unsafe driver and can pay the fine or the car was stolen and the fine should be waived.
> - What is the penalty for non-payment?
The same as it is now for unpaid speeding tickets.
> - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?
Then regular police cars that drive near them should notice this, pull them over and fine them.
> - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?
That seems like a weird thing for a state to do.
> - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
Yes
> - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
Probably not.
> - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?
Then you issue a ticket and they don't pay it. See New York and UN parking tickets for an example.
> - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?
Then they both get tickets.
> - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph?
> - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies?
> - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?
These questions all seem to think this is new, unreliable technology. Photo radar has existed and been used for decades.
> - Will humans audit the system?
Probably.
> - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?
Do you trust the humans issuing speeding tickets now?
Exactly. Many of your responses identify the ongoing ambiguity, to say nothing of the oversight required or the pat clarity an engineer mistakenly sees as a solution versus what a lawyer would tear apart using existing precedent, policy, and appeal to natural rights and precedent.
Responsibly implementing technology solutions in a human-centered system needs more precision than the holes a random internet commentator can poke and a random interrogator can gloss over. In many US states, red light cameras have been de-fanged with a variety of excuses, perhaps most importantly highlighting that the law doesn't work precisely.
Maybe you're right, maybe speed cameras aren't the solution. Maybe we should address it from the other direction — the cars themselves. Simply stop producing cars that can go faster than the legal limit.
Genuinely curious, are you not familiar with the existing concept of a speed camera? There are answers to all of these questions from jurisdictions near you I'm sure, if not the very one you're in or one you've driven in.
Yes, but typically legally untested, which is my premise.
To make a bit of a silly analogy, you could make a policy that every child born on 11/22 is to be sent to the salt mines upon age 8, but that doesn't mean it's going to work as an implemented policy. You could even try to solve for edge cases like children moving, children moving into the jurisdiction from other jurisdictions, children born during day or night, etc. etc. The minutia of the policy and their local implementations don't change the underlying legal or ethical questions.
I think the drivers who properly drive the stated speed limit when the speed limits are artificially low (many places in California bay area) while the rest of the traffic is moving faster are a much more significant danger than those who are "speeding" but driving the speed of traffic. Often the traffic is 20 mph over the speed limit.
The reality of the situation is that drivers adapt their speeds to the safety of the roads. If it's a curving road with poor surface conditions with limited visibility people drive slower. If it's a perfectly flat, perfectly straight road people will drive quite fast, because it's safe to do so.
Moving with the traffic is one factor. Another factor is the speed that the roads are designed to handle. While the former is probably the most significant factor when it comes to safety, there is little doubt in my mind that traffic fatalities would go down if everyone moved with the traffic at the speed limit.
As for people adapting their speeds based upon what's safe and what's not, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The joke around here is that people forget how to drive during the first snowfall. Not forget how to drive in the snow. Forget how to drive altogether. Why? Because people aren't adapting their speed. Likewise, people often drive at high speeds on winding roads. People often drive with sole consideration to the road, without any consideration to what surrounds it (e.g. schools, hospitals, pedestrians, cyclists, lane ways, entrances to parking lots, etc.).
Speed limits exist for a reason. Yes, sometimes bad decisions are made by stupid people when creating those speed limits. On the other hand, those stupid people probably know more about traffic safety than someone who thinks they have the right to endanger people by driving over the speed limit.
Because there is a massive gulf between how the law is written and what people do.
And Americans are very much not fond of an automated jackboot stepping into that gap.
You are advocating for the authoritarian extremist stance on something that people simply don't care much about to a population that's fairly hostile to those kinds of authoritarian stances.
What ends up happening is, since the automated systems are stationary, their location becomes known, so the drivers speed everywhere except just before the automated system. And they generally slow down in a rather dramatic and unsafe fashion.
Obviously we need a more robust system. The fact that the current system is lacking does not mean that all possible systems would be. It means the very opposite - the current methods have ample room for improvement.
Well, in Europe we do have a different take on the whole free speech/consequence balance, so I totally recognise that! I guess I see it a bit like a device which could block ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) - i.e. a device which is designed to allow users to break the law.
Alternately, a device that encourages users to comply with the law via particularly well-timed, targeted reminders. :)
I don’t recall if it’s Germany or Switzerland (or elsewhere in Europe somewhere) where I’ve seen official signs warning of a speed camera just ahead. Are those signs encouraging breaking the law elsewhere?
The official rationale for speed cameras in the UK is to reduce speeds in areas of danger, not to raise money from speeding fines (though the "safety camera partnerships" have certainly tried to do the latter too). So the cameras are painted bright yellow and their inclusion in satnav databases is actually encouraged on the basis that it highlights danger spots and encourages compliance with the limit.
Which is honestly a bit inconsistent with the way our law enforcement normally works, but there we go.
Aren't you warned in the US well before the camera's location?
In Sydney lots of people complain about the speed cameras but except for the mobile cameras, there are huge honking signs telling you there is a camera ahead. Most people will start to slow down well before the camera. On our highways we also have average speed cameras, 2 cameras will take a shot and if your average was too high, you get fined. But these are also well signed.
Yet people still get caught all the time. I'd have more sympathy for the people getting caught except that they are literally given a cheat sheet on the road for when to slow down and not get caught.
I don't recall who it is that said that, but it's still a win. People will start driving slower and more cautiously some time before the cameras ( not just in front of it, because they're probably not the only ones on the road and the drivers in front of them will need to do the same), in both directions, so you end up with tons of drivers driving more cautiously for a few km. Especially if you put the cameras in dangerous sections of the road, you can have a huge reduction in road incidents.
First, can you prove who the driver is? It seems you could ticket the car owner more readily than the driver, using only automated means.
Second, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans object to both automated and stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Our highways regularly move at 15-25 mph over the posted limits and people like it that way.
If we were willing to post speed limits at the 85th percentile observed speed and ticket only at more than the greater of 6 mph or 15% over that, then people might be willing to have stricter enforcement.
I see people weaving in and out of lanes on a regular basis when I drive in California, usually at a much higher speed than other cars. Where do you drive that you don't often see dangerous driving?
I see people doing that as well; most of the time what I see isn’t actually dangerous; it’s mildly annoying but objectively does not appear to be dangerous.
Objectively speaking, driving is the most dangerous thing most of us will ever do in our lives. Though it is debatable which behaviors cause more injury and death, I would argue that any behavior that surprises other drivers is something we should work to deter. And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death.
> And we all know that the higher the speed, the greater risk of injury an death.
It's not that simple. Driving on city streets, at lower speeds, has higher accident and fatality rates. Increasing the speed limit on highways actually reduced fatalities because more people would eschew the city streets for the freeways.
Personally, driving 55 was always lulling me to sleep. I was always stopping at McD's for coffee, or the rest stops so I could run a lap or so. Driving faster keeps me awake and alert.
BTW, I'm not proposing legalizing reckless driving.
"Increasing the speed limit on highways actually reduced fatalities because more people would eschew the city streets for the freeways."
That sounds wildly speculative and very much influenced by the specific metro. Most of the time in busy metros where those types of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occur, traffic determines which route people take, not speed limit.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that most freeway speed limits are too low.
Not at all. This was discovered when the speed limits were finally raised from 55. All the predictions were for a big rise in fatalities. Fatalities declined. Looking at traffic data explained it, with the drop in city street driving transferred to the freeways.
> city streets, at lower speeds, has higher accident and fatality rates
> people would eschew the city streets for the freeways.
This is also the argument against HOV lanes or paid left lanes. Adding more congestion to highways (by restricting lanes) pushes more people towards surface streets, which, as you state, are less safe. Highways have lots of non-fatal accidents, while surface streets with lights and 4-ways tend to cause t-bones, head-ons, and have pedestrians and bikers around.
Only because most people aren't doing it. Imagine if everyone was performing unneeded maneuvers all the time. Best case, they cause a traffic jam. Worst case they cause an accident.
You’ve never seen someone weaving in and out of traffic, cutting across 3 lanes at a time, and nearly clipping cars each time the change lanes?
Or you’ve never seen someone driving 30 miles an hour faster than the people in the lane next to them?
It wasn’t every day or every week, but I’ve seen it many times commuting into Atlanta over the years.
But sure if you removed speed limits most people would continue driving at a safe speed. The problem is small minority who choose to go 30 over. You can still make that illegal and prosecute them under reckless driving laws. But then you’re just adding even more subjectivity to traffic enforcement.
If you’re on a road without much traffic, what feels safe is subjective. It depends on what you’re used to and the car you’re driving.
> You’ve never seen someone weaving in and out of traffic, cutting across 3 lanes at a time, and nearly clipping cars each time the change lanes?
I have, and those driver(s) were clearly impaired - drunk or high. I did not propose removal of reckless or impaired driving laws. There are also laws against creating a hazard while driving, which would apply to driving 30mph faster than the adjacent traffic.
What makes you so sure they were drunk or high? I’ve most often seen it during morning commutes, and the speed at which they were successfully pulling off multiple lane changes with very narrow margins leads me to believe they weren’t impaired.
You could remove every driving law and just replace it with a single sentence—use common sense and don’t endanger other people by being reckless.
But eventually after the 400th time someone does it, it starts to makes sense to add an optimization to the system that says “on this stretch of road driving faster than 100 mph is automatically reckless.”
Inability to keep the car straight on a 4 lane freeway when there's no traffic means drunk or high.
High speed recklessness to me is overdriving your ability to see ahead and react. This varies considerably even on the same stretch of road due to lighting, weather, traffic, etc. 60mph can be way too slow on a fine sunny day with no traffic, and insanely reckless on an icy day in high winds.
> Inability to keep the car straight on a 4 lane freeway when there's no traffic means drunk or high.
I’m not talking about people who physically can’t keep the car straight. I’m talking about people who are driving significantly faster than everyone else and trying to get through traffic by rapidly switching lanes.
> High speed recklessness to me is overdriving your ability to see ahead and react. This varies considerably even on the same stretch of road due to lighting, weather, traffic, etc.
Yes it does. It also varies by car and driver, which makes it difficult judge/enforce at scale.
It’s easier to create a heuristic
that says in good weather, on this stretch of road, 85mph is too fast.
Studies show that consistently enforced speed limits reduce accidents and fatalities. They may not be optimal, but it looks like they are safer than the alternatives.
High speed variance can also be dangerous, since it encourages people to do overtaking maneuvers. This effect is probably significantly strong in low-visibility conditions.
> You’ve never seen someone weaving in and out of traffic, cutting across 3 lanes at a time, and nearly clipping cars each time the change lanes?
Indeed, least in real life. I've seen some dashcam videos from the USA on youtube though, idk if the sample size is just that much larger but I'm amazed at how prevalent that seems compared to German dashcam videos.
> Or you’ve never seen someone driving 30 miles an hour faster than the people in the lane next to them?
Hmm so like 50km/h if I'm not mistaken. Sure I've seen it, this is the land of unlimited speed highways after all, and on dashcams it's hilarious: someone (surprise!) didn't see them coming off in the distance, pulls out to overtake a truck, and the 200km/h guy has to break dangerously and swears like an old sailor. Gee didn't see that coming....again. So that's rather stupid indeed. Also completely normal and accepted in Germany unfortunately. Probably not legal in a "dangerous driving" sense, but perfectly legal for a speed limit camera.
> The problem is small minority who choose to go 30 over.
I know some of this "small minority". The only thing that gives them pause is the risk of losing their license or when they perceive danger to those around them (like in small streets in a town center). A speed sign would have to be posted at limits well below what you want them to drive, or the punishment for small (say 10-20 km/h) infractions would have to be draconian for repeat offenders. I'm not seeing that in any country near me so I'm not sure how realistic that is (but I'm no walking encyclopedia so maybe this exists, would be interesting to see if it works to punish only/mostly the intended group).
Perhaps where you drive is safer than where I do. I see dangerous driving multiple times a year and see recent accidents weekly (cars and cops on the side of the road).
According to the NTSB:
> "On the highways 100 people (are killed) a day," he said. "Every two days we are killing the equivalent of a Boeing 737 crashing. [0]
Obviously, not all directly a result of “insanely dangerous” driving (including the primary topic of that article). But, my definition would include driving that results in fatal accidents.
I would say it is insanely dangerous to put an unlicensed 13 year old behind the wheel of a 6000 lbs truck. Maybe the tire would have blown regardless of who was driving, but I have to suspect a 30+ year old construction worker would have better knowledge on how to safely bring a vehicle to a stop compared to a 13 year old kid.
Drivers are one of the top killers of young people and a very significant cause of lost years of life, and speed is a factor in IIRC 73% of collisions. People do not generally drive at a safe speed in the US, rather they drive at a speed that seems safe because they've done it a bunch of times - the same kind of normalization of deviance as launching your space shuttle because it never burned through both O-rings the last 20 times.
Maybe speed limits aren't achieving much at the moment, but it must be possible to start enforcing them and gradually change that culture - after all, drunk driving used to be just as routine as speeding is now.
To be more direct, I’m suspicious that this is just a misleading / question begging way of saying “in 73% of accidents, someone was speeding.” Which doesn’t really tell me anything unless I have already accepted the premise that speeding is usually a problem.
Ah I see. It means investigators assessed speed as being a causal factor. But they can and do consider multiple things to be causal factors. I don't remember more precise details.
This is purely anecdotal and goes against all data. A simple search for "Are speed limits effective" will show you tons of past experiments. Safe speed limits, when enforced, are highly effective in reducing accidents and fatalities.
Anyhow, there were experiments in Europe where all street signs were removed from small towns. Traffic accidents and deaths declined, contrary to all expectation.
...because drivers slowed down, no longer being confident that they had effective priority and could drive at or above the posted limit as long as they stayed within the lines.
Indeed. It's a fascinating, if counterintuitive, model. Remove all the usual signals that make drivers confident in what's going on, and so we have to think (and look) much harder and drive much slower. It has the consequence of giving de facto priority to pedestrians, too.
I find that enforced speeding fines (which doesn't seem to happen in the US) causes drivers to drive at different speeds, whether an individual at that speed is safe or not. Inconsistent driving speeds is a lot more difficult to drive in.
If I had a vote (which I don't) I'd say increase all the limits by 10 mph (to reflect what people are doing now) but then also fine people that are speeding (like +2mph).
Agreed! I was describing cars that are exceeding the speed of other cars on a fairly busy freeway and not using turn signals while rapidly changing lanes. Something I have seen a lot in California specifically.
I've done plenty of multi-state drives on mostly-empty highways with cruise control set at 90mph. And I think most people would agree that speed limits on those roads should be raised.
Again not necessarily dangerous. On a freeway (which by definition has no intersections unless my understanding is wrong) if there is zero traffic and you check your mirrors and blind spot I'd be pretty pissed to get some automatic ticket for this
Washington State (and probably other states are similar) has a law often summarized as: 'Keep Right - Except to Pass'.
Going SLOW in the left lane(s), particularly on the often 4+ wide lane Interstate Freeways near the urban core(s), is (I would love a real study on this) more dangerous than a driver going a little faster the further left they go. Though the most dangerous, and disruptive, are full-interrupts from enforcement officers to pull someone over and issue a ticket; which also causes a road hazard and gawker block.
I would much rather those public servants focused on even other traffic laws: improperly secured loads, failure to keep right to allow others to pass. Even more preferentially focused on non-traffic crimes: theft, various threats / assaults, etc.
To be honest, I'd much rather more effort is spent on education around safe driving. Certain reckless drivers are always going to be reckless.
Australia has the approach of heavy fines for the slightest infractions. As in 3km/h over the speed limit and you can be fined and receive demerit points that affect your insurance. It just feels oppressive. It's terrible.
Australian drivers are the some of the worst, angriest and most inconsiderate in the world in my experience. Don't believe me get on the M1 between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, you're guaranteed to see countless people tailgating with less than a meter distance to the car in front at 120+ kmh, snaking between lanes, abusing each other etc etc. Urban speed limits are too high and planners seem to have zero consideration for the safety of people on foot, bike and alternative transport. Hooning is rampant. I could go on. Speed cameras are woefully inadequate to fix any of it.
I'm going to need your home country for comparison - I find what you're saying here sounds a lot more like California (where I live now) than Australia.
I learned how to drive in Stockholm, which isn't great either, but doesn't get close to Australia.
By all means I think Vancouver and California drivers suck too :P I used to work in Vancouver CBD and witnessed several accidents people get hit by cars on the corner Robson Hornby. The city never did anything about it, it was just accepted as a fact of daily life.
EDIT a quick Google reveals people, including infants, are still getting hit and killed on the corner Robson Hornby, and it doesn't look like there's been any traffic calming or bollards or fencing or anything added to keep pedestrians safe. (people aren't just getting hit when crossing the intersection, they're getting hit by cars coming up on the sidewalks etc, it's crazy)
I’m neutral on Australian urban speed limits, they are similar to parts of the UK. However the standard of driving in the urban speed limits in AU is far poorer, the lower limit the more aggressive the driving gets. Australian drivers are aggressive, tailgate, no lane discipline, if you are a pedestrian/cyclist you are in the way and Australian drivers make it known speeding up, getting close, not giving way. The speed limit doesn’t seem to be the issue, the attitude does.
Non urban speed limits seem lower in AU, the flow of traffic generally on the highway seems lower in AU. The UK most people do 80mph on the motorway (limit is 70mph), AU limit is 110km/h (68mph) and most drivers do 100km/h with those speeding doing 120km/h (just under 75mph). Regardless of AU flow of traffic feeling slower on the highway, I’ll almost always see people lane hogging, tail gating, under taking, cutting people up and feel far more at risk than driving in the uk/eu where people are driving faster, but more considerately
Ranting a bit but I feel like in many European countries, if you behaved the way Australian drivers do, you would get ostracized and people would never want to get in a car with you. That kind of behavior is just totally socially unacceptable - there's a widespread understanding that you should stop to let pedestrians cross, you should give way and merge in a cooperative, charitable way etc etc.
Whereas in Australia, aggressive driving isn't just taken for granted and perfectly socially acceptable, but in a huge share of the population, it's straight up encouraged as something good and cool. "Having to" stop to let pedestrians across, giving way, being overtaken etc is taken as some kind of personal slight that should be punished or made clear to the "offender" that it's unacceptable, by intimidation or abuse or both. It's a bizarre and childish mentality, like kids racing their bikes and have to arrive first or something.
I've been living in the US for 4 years now (from Australia) and I find driving in the US, with their inconsistent-to-nonexistent speeding fines have caused driving to be a real pain - everyone drives at different speeds, mostly 10+ mph over.
Went to Australia last month - driving was so nice (yes, also to the Gold Coast). Everyone does the same speed (more or less); you can see cars in your mirrors and know they're going to be roughly in the same spot a second or two later when changing lanes :) :)
It does appear oppressive to someone who is used to +10% wiggle room on the speed limits, but I think a key point of confusion here is that recommended speed and speed limit are two separate concepts, but are conflated into simply the speed limit, and the recommended speed is rarely advertised.
And, that hard 3km/h over the speed limit standard also applies in places that have more lenient enforcement, but the driver never knows exactly where the limit is because it is based on the cop's discretion. For example, on most US highways, if the speed limit is 65, you can do 75 without getting a second look from a cop. But if they clock you at 76, you're getting pulled over.
Hmmm, interesting. Does getting pulled over at 76 in a 65 come with more than just a fine?
Germany for example has the rule that anything under 18kmh over the speed limit is only a fine that doesn't get recorded otherwise. Only going over that results in demerit points and insurance or license implications. This makes it okay to speed as long as it is safe. Yes there is still the element of it being the cop's discretion but even when pulled over there are no lasting consequences.
Australia is much harsher in that regard with any speeding offence coming with demerit points that remain tied to the license for 3+ years. It's ridiculous.
> I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US
Although local municipalities often ignore the entire Bill of Rights, I believe at the State level they take the 6th Amendment more seriously, specifically the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It really is not possible to cross-examine a camera, a machine, a computer, or a more complex system. This kind of 6th Amendment issue was explored in a first season episode of the original Star Trek series, Court Martial.[1]
This is bizarre. In many European countries you absolutely have the right to challenge any and all evidence against you if you decide to contest the penalty. In such case you go to court to make your case.
I think if traffic laws were more rational, we wouldn't have these problems.
I think it's interesting that on the autobahn the kind of behavior you're talking about is minimized. Because there is no speed limit, slower traffic keeps right, and people who want to pass can do so on the left.
In the US, when everybody is going the speed limit or above, there is a general disregard for most laws. If the speed limit is 65, people in the left lane going over the speed limit feel entitled to go 66, and the folks who want to go 70 get blocked, get upset and end up going 90, passing on the right and making it worse for everyone.
Maybe because the automated enforcement can easily be applied for unexpected goals. In the US, many red light cameras are operated by private companies that are contracted by local governments. They split the revenue. The private companies will then reduce the duration of yellow lights to to increase the number of tickets. The end result is sometimes more accidents as the time from green to red is reduced and more fine revenue is collected. That seems like a perverse incentive for a perverse outcome.
But that's an enormous implementation problem. You can't fault the good idea ( automates speed/basic rule like not going through red lights enforcement) for that. Fault the idiots who thought it's a good idea to outsource, with a profit motive at that, such an essential service. What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals?
> Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest?
You can make that exact same argument for literally everything. Drunk drivers are against the public interest. So are child porn distributors, tax evaders, unfettered capitalists and a bunch of other things, so should we just ban cars, the internet and just about everything?
You can ruin pretty much everything with the shittiest possible implementation, that doesn't invalidate the base logic behind the thing.
>You can make that exact same argument for literally everything. Drunk drivers are against the public interest. So are child porn distributors, tax evaders, unfettered capitalists and a bunch of other things, so should we just ban cars, the internet and just about everything?
Nobody cares when unjust enforcement practices are used against really bad criminals or are used against really small segments of the population.
People going 70 on a road designed for 70 and signed at 55 is a broad cross section of the population. Slap draconian enforcement on top and people aren't just gonna bend over and take it.
Ha, reminds me of this exchange from Doctor Stangelove about how their implementation of thermonuclear war went a bit wrong:
General "Buck" Turgidson : Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he had issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.
[beat]
General "Buck" Turgidson : Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
President Merkin Muffley : There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
General "Buck" Turgidson : We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
President Merkin Muffley : General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring!
General "Buck" Turgidson : Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
Having been pulled over a few times, and received a few mail tickets, the latter make a lot more sense.
When I get pulled over, there's always a bit of menace. I've had K-9s sniff around my car while the officer admires toys attached to it. In the US, there are swaths where any roads off the interstates are basically bandit territory if you have out-of-state plates and/or the wrong colored skin.
When I get a ticket in the mail, I can choose to pay or contest it with a level head. Often the mail tickets include links to a video, which can be hilarious if you register your vehicle to a family address.
But modern traffic stops are an embarrassing blight on the nation, especially considering our civil forfeiture laws. If you're in the US, pray that you get a state trooper.
Or roads are badly designed, in a way that their psychological speed limit is higher than what is indicated. But the lower limit can have more reasons, such as noise pollution near a residential area, or pedestrian safety.
There are some issues, as have been pointed out, but one very real incentive to figuring those things out is the opportunity to reduce the number of problematic interactions with the police.
The notion of paying people to drive the speed limit (with money taken from speeding ticket fines) reminded me of the daycare late charge experiments. [1] These showed that when daycares started charging late fees to parents who were picking up kids late, parents became less timely. Apparently the fees transformed the transaction into a financial one, and parents felt that they could pick up later because they were paying for it.
I could imagine a similar thing happening with this type of financial system for drivers. People might drive slower sometimes, but figure it's OK to speed other times because the whole system is financially-mediated.
It doesn't work that way with speed cameras here. Repeated offenses will get your license revoked, at which point your offenses start being driving without a license and speeding which will end in jail.
That sounds okay though as long as the fee is correctly set. Its likely that at any decent sized daycare one of the employees would be willing to do overtime each day.
Not what happened in that experiment, it’s in the article:
“Over the initial three-day trial, almost 25,000 cars were caught on camera, according to the YouTube video. The average speed of cars travelling through the school zone was reduced from 32km/h before the trial to 25km/h during the experiment.”
Enforcement of fines plus the possibility of losing one’s license i think would be enough to ensure the effectiveness, but maybe also displaying each driver’s speed visibly is a factor? In fact I imagine for the daycare experiment if they had combined fines + the possibility of having ones child dismissed from the program it also would have been more effective.
What the article doesn't answer: Did the experiment show a reduction in children hit in the school zone?
I'd be pretty pissed if a kid was hit because someone was more focused on their speedometer than on the road.
For cars where you can put your speed limiter that shouldn't be an issue, but otherwise I prefer people driving 32km/h who are paying attention than 25km/h people distracted by speedometer readings...
127 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadIt's very plainly about control more than human life.
You're asserting that a system that does not exist, and would save human lives if it did exist, could not exist for that provable, measurable reason, but instead can only exist for the paranoid reason you've asserted with no evidence. Do you see the flaw in that logic?
Maybe I’m wrong about why they went away in Utah. This resource says… [1]
> In Utah, the legislature has placed so many restrictions on the use of photo radar -- specifically, banning outsourcing of the ticketing process to private, for-profit companies -- that no city uses speed cameras. This serves as an "effective ban" on photo enforcement.
There are reports of them being unconstitutional but they might not be credible.[2]
1. https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp
2. https://www.independentsentinel.com/speed-cameras-ruled-unco...
And yeah, people should leave more room, but they don't. So you get enforcement camera-induced accidents, thus defeating the purpose.
Because that’s super fun and everyone’s gotta die sooner or later anyways?
There are a thousand ways to get kicks in life without directly endangering the lives of other human beings. Some people like skydiving and rock climbing. I like to do lots of drugs and have adventurous sex. But only a misanthrope or someone with acute mental illness would think risking the lives of strangers is worth a very mild thrill of driving kind of fast.
Or an American. My point which I mistakenly thought was self apparent is that this attitude is pretty ingrained as a core premise of American pop culture.
> I can't understand why we don't have more automated highway enforcement in the US.
I think the answer is because Americans have a love affair with the car and view driving fast as an expression of personal freedom.
Runner up guess is that cops like pulling people over for a living.
Fatal car accidents happen all the time. They're not rare.
We need proof of that. It turns out to be legally thorny.
- Is the driver recognizable and is the owner?
- What is the penalty for non-payment?
- What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?
- What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?
- What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
- What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
- What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?
- What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?
- What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph?
- What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies?
- What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?
- Will humans audit the system?
- Can we trust those humans that audit the system?
Many could be improved as technical systems, but trust in red light cameras and similar automated solutions isn't high. Good luck reverting many US states that have all but outlawed them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_light_camera#Decrease_sinc...
Most organizations have three things: people, policy, and technology. Pissing off the people with technology gets a lot of backlash.
- More financial penalties.
- Can't enforce what isn't enforceable.
- See above
- Yes
- Yes
- They are exempt.
- They can explain that in court.
- The state makes a lot of money, then.
- That would be a crime.
- Fine the fly.
- No. Save the taxpayer dollars.
- No. But that's true with anything that's government-related.
In Sydney there is now a system that will track drivers attention and if you get caught looking at your phone while driving you get a fine.
Does it matter? Either the owner authorized the unsafe driver and can pay the fine or the car was stolen and the fine should be waived.
> - What is the penalty for non-payment?
The same as it is now for unpaid speeding tickets.
> - What if the driver obfuscates their license plate?
Then regular police cars that drive near them should notice this, pull them over and fine them.
> - What if that state has released license plates that aren't readable?
That seems like a weird thing for a state to do.
> - What about police vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
Yes
> - What about military vehicles? Can they drive 90 mph with no blinker?
Probably not.
> - What if the car is registered with diplomatic immunity?
Then you issue a ticket and they don't pay it. See New York and UN parking tickets for an example.
> - What if the car is getting away from another car driving 90 mph with no blinker?
Then they both get tickets.
> - What if the system fails and says everyone is driving 90 mph? > - What if the system is hacked, and/or deepfakes added to political enemies? > - What if the system catches a fly flying by and attributes its catch to a car driving 1,000 mph?
These questions all seem to think this is new, unreliable technology. Photo radar has existed and been used for decades.
> - Will humans audit the system?
Probably.
> - Can we trust those humans that audit the system?
Do you trust the humans issuing speeding tickets now?
Responsibly implementing technology solutions in a human-centered system needs more precision than the holes a random internet commentator can poke and a random interrogator can gloss over. In many US states, red light cameras have been de-fanged with a variety of excuses, perhaps most importantly highlighting that the law doesn't work precisely.
To make a bit of a silly analogy, you could make a policy that every child born on 11/22 is to be sent to the salt mines upon age 8, but that doesn't mean it's going to work as an implemented policy. You could even try to solve for edge cases like children moving, children moving into the jurisdiction from other jurisdictions, children born during day or night, etc. etc. The minutia of the policy and their local implementations don't change the underlying legal or ethical questions.
The reality of the situation is that drivers adapt their speeds to the safety of the roads. If it's a curving road with poor surface conditions with limited visibility people drive slower. If it's a perfectly flat, perfectly straight road people will drive quite fast, because it's safe to do so.
As for people adapting their speeds based upon what's safe and what's not, sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. The joke around here is that people forget how to drive during the first snowfall. Not forget how to drive in the snow. Forget how to drive altogether. Why? Because people aren't adapting their speed. Likewise, people often drive at high speeds on winding roads. People often drive with sole consideration to the road, without any consideration to what surrounds it (e.g. schools, hospitals, pedestrians, cyclists, lane ways, entrances to parking lots, etc.).
Speed limits exist for a reason. Yes, sometimes bad decisions are made by stupid people when creating those speed limits. On the other hand, those stupid people probably know more about traffic safety than someone who thinks they have the right to endanger people by driving over the speed limit.
And Americans are very much not fond of an automated jackboot stepping into that gap.
You are advocating for the authoritarian extremist stance on something that people simply don't care much about to a population that's fairly hostile to those kinds of authoritarian stances.
I don’t recall if it’s Germany or Switzerland (or elsewhere in Europe somewhere) where I’ve seen official signs warning of a speed camera just ahead. Are those signs encouraging breaking the law elsewhere?
Which is honestly a bit inconsistent with the way our law enforcement normally works, but there we go.
In Sydney lots of people complain about the speed cameras but except for the mobile cameras, there are huge honking signs telling you there is a camera ahead. Most people will start to slow down well before the camera. On our highways we also have average speed cameras, 2 cameras will take a shot and if your average was too high, you get fined. But these are also well signed.
Yet people still get caught all the time. I'd have more sympathy for the people getting caught except that they are literally given a cheat sheet on the road for when to slow down and not get caught.
Second, I think the overwhelming majority of Americans object to both automated and stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Our highways regularly move at 15-25 mph over the posted limits and people like it that way.
If we were willing to post speed limits at the 85th percentile observed speed and ticket only at more than the greater of 6 mph or 15% over that, then people might be willing to have stricter enforcement.
I can't even recall witnessing insanely dangerous driving, outside of someone clearly impaired.
It speeding laws were removed (except for children zones), I doubt you'd see any difference.
It's not that simple. Driving on city streets, at lower speeds, has higher accident and fatality rates. Increasing the speed limit on highways actually reduced fatalities because more people would eschew the city streets for the freeways.
Personally, driving 55 was always lulling me to sleep. I was always stopping at McD's for coffee, or the rest stops so I could run a lap or so. Driving faster keeps me awake and alert.
BTW, I'm not proposing legalizing reckless driving.
That sounds wildly speculative and very much influenced by the specific metro. Most of the time in busy metros where those types of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occur, traffic determines which route people take, not speed limit.
One thing we all seem to agree on is that most freeway speed limits are too low.
Not at all. This was discovered when the speed limits were finally raised from 55. All the predictions were for a big rise in fatalities. Fatalities declined. Looking at traffic data explained it, with the drop in city street driving transferred to the freeways.
> people would eschew the city streets for the freeways.
This is also the argument against HOV lanes or paid left lanes. Adding more congestion to highways (by restricting lanes) pushes more people towards surface streets, which, as you state, are less safe. Highways have lots of non-fatal accidents, while surface streets with lights and 4-ways tend to cause t-bones, head-ons, and have pedestrians and bikers around.
Or you’ve never seen someone driving 30 miles an hour faster than the people in the lane next to them?
It wasn’t every day or every week, but I’ve seen it many times commuting into Atlanta over the years.
But sure if you removed speed limits most people would continue driving at a safe speed. The problem is small minority who choose to go 30 over. You can still make that illegal and prosecute them under reckless driving laws. But then you’re just adding even more subjectivity to traffic enforcement.
If you’re on a road without much traffic, what feels safe is subjective. It depends on what you’re used to and the car you’re driving.
I have, and those driver(s) were clearly impaired - drunk or high. I did not propose removal of reckless or impaired driving laws. There are also laws against creating a hazard while driving, which would apply to driving 30mph faster than the adjacent traffic.
You could remove every driving law and just replace it with a single sentence—use common sense and don’t endanger other people by being reckless.
But eventually after the 400th time someone does it, it starts to makes sense to add an optimization to the system that says “on this stretch of road driving faster than 100 mph is automatically reckless.”
Inability to keep the car straight on a 4 lane freeway when there's no traffic means drunk or high.
High speed recklessness to me is overdriving your ability to see ahead and react. This varies considerably even on the same stretch of road due to lighting, weather, traffic, etc. 60mph can be way too slow on a fine sunny day with no traffic, and insanely reckless on an icy day in high winds.
I’m not talking about people who physically can’t keep the car straight. I’m talking about people who are driving significantly faster than everyone else and trying to get through traffic by rapidly switching lanes.
> High speed recklessness to me is overdriving your ability to see ahead and react. This varies considerably even on the same stretch of road due to lighting, weather, traffic, etc.
Yes it does. It also varies by car and driver, which makes it difficult judge/enforce at scale.
It’s easier to create a heuristic that says in good weather, on this stretch of road, 85mph is too fast.
Studies show that consistently enforced speed limits reduce accidents and fatalities. They may not be optimal, but it looks like they are safer than the alternatives.
Indeed, least in real life. I've seen some dashcam videos from the USA on youtube though, idk if the sample size is just that much larger but I'm amazed at how prevalent that seems compared to German dashcam videos.
> Or you’ve never seen someone driving 30 miles an hour faster than the people in the lane next to them?
Hmm so like 50km/h if I'm not mistaken. Sure I've seen it, this is the land of unlimited speed highways after all, and on dashcams it's hilarious: someone (surprise!) didn't see them coming off in the distance, pulls out to overtake a truck, and the 200km/h guy has to break dangerously and swears like an old sailor. Gee didn't see that coming....again. So that's rather stupid indeed. Also completely normal and accepted in Germany unfortunately. Probably not legal in a "dangerous driving" sense, but perfectly legal for a speed limit camera.
> The problem is small minority who choose to go 30 over.
I know some of this "small minority". The only thing that gives them pause is the risk of losing their license or when they perceive danger to those around them (like in small streets in a town center). A speed sign would have to be posted at limits well below what you want them to drive, or the punishment for small (say 10-20 km/h) infractions would have to be draconian for repeat offenders. I'm not seeing that in any country near me so I'm not sure how realistic that is (but I'm no walking encyclopedia so maybe this exists, would be interesting to see if it works to punish only/mostly the intended group).
According to the NTSB:
> "On the highways 100 people (are killed) a day," he said. "Every two days we are killing the equivalent of a Boeing 737 crashing. [0]
Obviously, not all directly a result of “insanely dangerous” driving (including the primary topic of that article). But, my definition would include driving that results in fatal accidents.
[0] https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_28168226adfec28da29cec92e7...
To be more direct, I’m suspicious that this is just a misleading / question begging way of saying “in 73% of accidents, someone was speeding.” Which doesn’t really tell me anything unless I have already accepted the premise that speeding is usually a problem.
Anyhow, there were experiments in Europe where all street signs were removed from small towns. Traffic accidents and deaths declined, contrary to all expectation.
If I had a vote (which I don't) I'd say increase all the limits by 10 mph (to reflect what people are doing now) but then also fine people that are speeding (like +2mph).
I've done plenty of multi-state drives on mostly-empty highways with cruise control set at 90mph. And I think most people would agree that speed limits on those roads should be raised.
Might as well read the rest of the description they provided.
Going SLOW in the left lane(s), particularly on the often 4+ wide lane Interstate Freeways near the urban core(s), is (I would love a real study on this) more dangerous than a driver going a little faster the further left they go. Though the most dangerous, and disruptive, are full-interrupts from enforcement officers to pull someone over and issue a ticket; which also causes a road hazard and gawker block.
I would much rather those public servants focused on even other traffic laws: improperly secured loads, failure to keep right to allow others to pass. Even more preferentially focused on non-traffic crimes: theft, various threats / assaults, etc.
Australia has the approach of heavy fines for the slightest infractions. As in 3km/h over the speed limit and you can be fined and receive demerit points that affect your insurance. It just feels oppressive. It's terrible.
By all means I think Vancouver and California drivers suck too :P I used to work in Vancouver CBD and witnessed several accidents people get hit by cars on the corner Robson Hornby. The city never did anything about it, it was just accepted as a fact of daily life.
EDIT a quick Google reveals people, including infants, are still getting hit and killed on the corner Robson Hornby, and it doesn't look like there's been any traffic calming or bollards or fencing or anything added to keep pedestrians safe. (people aren't just getting hit when crossing the intersection, they're getting hit by cars coming up on the sidewalks etc, it's crazy)
I’m neutral on Australian urban speed limits, they are similar to parts of the UK. However the standard of driving in the urban speed limits in AU is far poorer, the lower limit the more aggressive the driving gets. Australian drivers are aggressive, tailgate, no lane discipline, if you are a pedestrian/cyclist you are in the way and Australian drivers make it known speeding up, getting close, not giving way. The speed limit doesn’t seem to be the issue, the attitude does.
Non urban speed limits seem lower in AU, the flow of traffic generally on the highway seems lower in AU. The UK most people do 80mph on the motorway (limit is 70mph), AU limit is 110km/h (68mph) and most drivers do 100km/h with those speeding doing 120km/h (just under 75mph). Regardless of AU flow of traffic feeling slower on the highway, I’ll almost always see people lane hogging, tail gating, under taking, cutting people up and feel far more at risk than driving in the uk/eu where people are driving faster, but more considerately
Ranting a bit but I feel like in many European countries, if you behaved the way Australian drivers do, you would get ostracized and people would never want to get in a car with you. That kind of behavior is just totally socially unacceptable - there's a widespread understanding that you should stop to let pedestrians cross, you should give way and merge in a cooperative, charitable way etc etc.
Whereas in Australia, aggressive driving isn't just taken for granted and perfectly socially acceptable, but in a huge share of the population, it's straight up encouraged as something good and cool. "Having to" stop to let pedestrians across, giving way, being overtaken etc is taken as some kind of personal slight that should be punished or made clear to the "offender" that it's unacceptable, by intimidation or abuse or both. It's a bizarre and childish mentality, like kids racing their bikes and have to arrive first or something.
Went to Australia last month - driving was so nice (yes, also to the Gold Coast). Everyone does the same speed (more or less); you can see cars in your mirrors and know they're going to be roughly in the same spot a second or two later when changing lanes :) :)
That said I haven't been to the US so not sure what it is like.
And, that hard 3km/h over the speed limit standard also applies in places that have more lenient enforcement, but the driver never knows exactly where the limit is because it is based on the cop's discretion. For example, on most US highways, if the speed limit is 65, you can do 75 without getting a second look from a cop. But if they clock you at 76, you're getting pulled over.
Germany for example has the rule that anything under 18kmh over the speed limit is only a fine that doesn't get recorded otherwise. Only going over that results in demerit points and insurance or license implications. This makes it okay to speed as long as it is safe. Yes there is still the element of it being the cop's discretion but even when pulled over there are no lasting consequences.
Australia is much harsher in that regard with any speeding offence coming with demerit points that remain tied to the license for 3+ years. It's ridiculous.
Although local municipalities often ignore the entire Bill of Rights, I believe at the State level they take the 6th Amendment more seriously, specifically the right of the accused to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them. It really is not possible to cross-examine a camera, a machine, a computer, or a more complex system. This kind of 6th Amendment issue was explored in a first season episode of the original Star Trek series, Court Martial.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVfFWs4BKBE&t=2m9s
Your theory would make CCTV recordings inadmissible against burgalars.
Besides, that limitation is about criminal, not civil, matters.
I think it's interesting that on the autobahn the kind of behavior you're talking about is minimized. Because there is no speed limit, slower traffic keeps right, and people who want to pass can do so on the left.
In the US, when everybody is going the speed limit or above, there is a general disregard for most laws. If the speed limit is 65, people in the left lane going over the speed limit feel entitled to go 66, and the folks who want to go 70 get blocked, get upset and end up going 90, passing on the right and making it worse for everyone.
Is it really such a good idea if it took no time at all for it to start being abused in a manner that is opposite of the public interest?
>What's next, private cops paid per criminal caught so they have an incentive to create/force/incentivise/dupe criminals?
Informants do basically this all the time.
You can make that exact same argument for literally everything. Drunk drivers are against the public interest. So are child porn distributors, tax evaders, unfettered capitalists and a bunch of other things, so should we just ban cars, the internet and just about everything?
You can ruin pretty much everything with the shittiest possible implementation, that doesn't invalidate the base logic behind the thing.
Nobody cares when unjust enforcement practices are used against really bad criminals or are used against really small segments of the population.
People going 70 on a road designed for 70 and signed at 55 is a broad cross section of the population. Slap draconian enforcement on top and people aren't just gonna bend over and take it.
Ha, reminds me of this exchange from Doctor Stangelove about how their implementation of thermonuclear war went a bit wrong:
General "Buck" Turgidson : Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he had issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.
[beat]
General "Buck" Turgidson : Uh, we're, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
President Merkin Muffley : There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
General "Buck" Turgidson : We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
President Merkin Muffley : General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring!
General "Buck" Turgidson : Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
Having been pulled over a few times, and received a few mail tickets, the latter make a lot more sense.
When I get pulled over, there's always a bit of menace. I've had K-9s sniff around my car while the officer admires toys attached to it. In the US, there are swaths where any roads off the interstates are basically bandit territory if you have out-of-state plates and/or the wrong colored skin.
When I get a ticket in the mail, I can choose to pay or contest it with a level head. Often the mail tickets include links to a video, which can be hilarious if you register your vehicle to a family address.
But modern traffic stops are an embarrassing blight on the nation, especially considering our civil forfeiture laws. If you're in the US, pray that you get a state trooper.
I've been fined a few times. I eventually figured out that if you don't speed you don't get fines :)
There are a lot of dumb laws, including speed limits, that need someone other than a lawyer to opine on. Unfortunately it has all become a spectacle.
I could imagine a similar thing happening with this type of financial system for drivers. People might drive slower sometimes, but figure it's OK to speed other times because the whole system is financially-mediated.
1: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/what-makes-people-do-what-t...
FWIW, I have no idea if anyone has tried, succeeded, or failed to replicate these experiments.
“Over the initial three-day trial, almost 25,000 cars were caught on camera, according to the YouTube video. The average speed of cars travelling through the school zone was reduced from 32km/h before the trial to 25km/h during the experiment.”
Enforcement of fines plus the possibility of losing one’s license i think would be enough to ensure the effectiveness, but maybe also displaying each driver’s speed visibly is a factor? In fact I imagine for the daycare experiment if they had combined fines + the possibility of having ones child dismissed from the program it also would have been more effective.
I'd be pretty pissed if a kid was hit because someone was more focused on their speedometer than on the road.
For cars where you can put your speed limiter that shouldn't be an issue, but otherwise I prefer people driving 32km/h who are paying attention than 25km/h people distracted by speedometer readings...