Comments on How else can DC's camera program improve safety? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Bertie

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:52:51 EDT

Can you explain how a camera, pointed at license plates, on vehicles driving on a public road are an invasion of privacy?

They allow the government to track the movements of its citizens.

Comment by drumz

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:47:09 EDT

Can you explain how a camera, pointed at license plates, on vehicles driving on a public road are an invasion of privacy? General surveillance cameras sure, but cameras that are meant to catch traffic infractions?

Comment by Bertie

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:19:19 EDT

And there is no evidence that making cyclists add licence plates will make things safer.

Has it been tried? If so, where, for how long, and what were the effects on safety?

Comment by Bertie

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:04:05 EDT

We'll get this right after we have mandatory registration, tracking, and national ID cards for every handgun owner.

There is an enormously powerful political lobby adamantly opposed to registration and tracking of handgun owners. I'm not aware of any major political lobby adamantly opposed to license plates for bicycles or enforcement of road laws on cyclists.

Can you please, for God's sake, address the issue of *why* speed cameras are not in the neighborhoods?

Probably because they are considered to be an invasion of privacy without sufficient cause.

Comment by Falls Church

Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:45:02 EDT

There are no homes or businesses in that location and pedestrians and bicycles are expressly prohibited (signs are posted)

That's all irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not there are crashes caused by speeding.

That is in fact very relevant. If the only folks using and affected by those roads are drivers, than the road should be managed in a way that is optimal for drivers. That likely means higher speeds limits and/or fewer cameras if people are willing to risk the increased danger for the convenience of greater speed and fewer tickets. If the road is shared with other users, then their needs should be taken into consideration as well.

The point is that cameras make lots of sense in areas where a threshold number of road users think that current speeds are unsafe. This is true in many ped-intensive areas of town like Cap Hill. It is likely not true on DC's interstates where the only users are drivers. So the cameras on interstates should be moved to areas where folks are crying out for the need for cameras, like Cap Hill.

Comment by David C

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:39:35 EDT

@Sally,

I agree put license plates on the bikes and let them get red light tickets every time the biker rides through a red light. This would be treating everyone equally on following the rules of the road.

This post is about how to make roads safer, not how to treat everyone equally. And there is no evidence that making cyclists add licence plates will make things safer. I suspect it will have the opposite effect - as well as increasing congestion.

Further more, if there is any inequality on the roads, it likely does not weigh in the favor of cyclists. Also, what Jasper said times 381.

Comment by David C

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:39:16 EDT

@ceefer

And I've lived and driven in the area to remember when the speed limit on 395 was 50 mph.

When was that exactly?

Once the speed cameras were deployed, it was lowered to 40.

And when did those two events occur? You keep making this claim and have no evidence. Surely if it were true, it would be documented somewhere, right?

. There are no homes or businesses in that location and pedestrians and bicycles are expressly prohibited (signs are posted)

That's all irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not there are crashes caused by speeding.

Comment by David C

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:38:58 EDT

If the goal is to increase safety, then I like letting violators have the option of attending a free 4-hour class on Saturdays and have their 1st ticket every 12 months waived. It also has the advantage of deflecting the charge that it's all about money. And for those who pay, add points. And then use the revenue to make streets safer.

If the goal is to make it more politcally palatable, use the revenue to to send every citizen a rebate check once a year - or bury PEPCO lines, or just bury PEPCO.

If the goal is to raise revenue, they should create a congestion charge/zone.

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:12:20 EDT

Another tip: prevent cop from making up shit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/9/former-dc-cop-admits-falsifying-radar-camera-testi/

A former D.C. police officer admitted Thursday to falsifying logs regarding the testing of mobile photo-radar cameras that issue speeding tickets — a move that resulted in the department having to refund more than $17,000 in traffic ticket fines.

Comment by drum

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 20:32:56 EDT

Drivers are holding me up because they go under the speed limit. It is therefore the camera's fault.

Hint, your problem is with the drivers who don't realize you don't get a bonus for going x amount under the speed limit. The city has conveniently placed signs all over the place that let you know your max speed.

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:39:40 EDT

@Thump,

"I call BS. NO WAY anyone slows to 10 mph unless you're in stop and go traffic...especially when you're talking "regulars"."
---

I drive past that speed camera 4-5 times a week, so I know what I'm talking about.

Take a drive through the area and see for yourself before you insinuate that people are liars.

Comment by Michael Hamilton

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:12:19 EDT

Considering that lengthening yellow lights will actually improve safety and costs nothing to implement, I think you're facing an uphill battle.

If you're going to keep the cameras for whatever reason, give the revenue to taxpayers in the form of a tax credit.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:45:01 EDT

Silly @drumz, roads are for cars.

Comment by drumz

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:17:03 EDT

Tom,

So correct me if I'm wrong but are you literally arguing that drivers should decide what's right or wrong when it comes to speed limits? Can we extend that to cyclists and pedestrians?

And why is it beneficial to consider the needs of drivers over other modes, especially in regards to saftey? Which you yourself have admitted that many municipal governments have been prioritizing drivers for a long time now.

Comment by Tom Murphy

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:01:30 EDT

You must remember to address and tailor your arguments to the only audience who are to be convinced, the drivers.
The procurement question is only the elected/non-elected decision makers recognizing this. They have erected this 'barrier' because it is totally within their control, and they are listening to the drivers.
Drivers will drive at the greatest speed they feel safe at.
They don't want to cause harm and they do have a great deal of experience with those roads. In a way, they are the expert engineers. You must make your argument to them with valid facts. Artificially making the right-of-way difficult; therefore, more dangerous, is not a valid or winning argument!
Before you 'lock in' a traffic-flow limit with pecuniary punishments you should have a needed discussion with the shareholders, and don't forget the drivers. Unless they a majority of the discussion, you have no consensus. This is a tactic employed by advocates everywhere who want only a dis-incentive for driving("Hearing no objections, I...". & "And I am unanimous in that!")
Here in NYC we have raised speed limits twice. In 1925 to 25mph because everyone would have been arrested for speeding over the 20mph limit, and again, in 1964 because the State overruled the City and upped it to 30mph. The 85 percentile, the de facto limit, is at least 35mph and approaching 40 mph. I think that is chiefly drivers feeling comfortable and assured going over the limit. No matter how speed is argued please look at how far down the list of traffic crash/death/serious injury causes where excessive speed appears. Now look at pedestrian drunkenness, surprised?

Comment by thump

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:19:19 EDT

@Jim T-I didn't add that, but yes, they won't get popped up in the air or anything, but the ambulance driver has to slow way down. Response times suffer.

Comment by Jim T

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:05:34 EDT

@thump: Not to mention the impact of speed bumps on accident victims being taken to a hospital.

Comment by thump

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:54:41 EDT

Ride Sally ride...you'll understand how unrealistic your statement is then. Bicycles aren't motor vehicles. Trying to shoehorn bikes into the rules for cars doesn't make sense.

Regulars know about the camera and therfore slow down to ridiculously low - and dangerous - speeds of as little as 10 mph in a posted 40 mph zone.

I call BS. NO WAY anyone slows to 10 mph unless you're in stop and go traffic...especially when you're talking "regulars".

Re: Speed bumps. Speed bumps work well on smaller local streets. They're not a good solution on major roads or roads where there is a large amount of emergency vehicle traffic, especially fire trucks b/c they dramatically reduce response times. It's better to install chicanes or narrow the lanes.

BTW, @David Alpert, what is the status of C St.? Has the project been done already? I don't go to that part of town ever really. If not, why? It's been 2 1/2 years since that announcement.
Also, I heard that the L St. redesign was supposed to be completed by the end of the summer, but I work on L and no construction has started yet. Mike Goodno, DC bike program guy, told me they were "wrestling with some contracting issues" but hoped to start in the next "couple weeks". That was mid-July.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:49:50 EDT

No, it would not. Unless you want to go and walk around with a license plate on your front and back as a pedestrian.

I think we should require anyone operating a motor vehicle on the public roads to hold a CDL license. The fact that we treat some motor vehicle operators one way, and others another is an outrage in what is supposed to be a free society.

It's the only fair thing to do, and we'd have a much more skilled driving population.

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:25:35 EDT

@ Sally:This would be treating everyone equally on following the rules of the road.

No, it would not. Unless you want to go and walk around with a license plate on your front and back as a pedestrian.

Comment by movement

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:37:02 EDT

Personally I don't believe traffic cameras can do much to improve traffic safety. However, one place where I believe they do have a function is in combating gridlock. I think a machine-generated ticket is perfectly appropriate for a vehicle that blocks the box.

Comment by dcd

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:15:54 EDT

@Sally - be careful what you wish for. When those bikes stop and wait at red lights and stop signs, there will be cars waiting behind them, fuming because of the slow start the bike is getting. Because the rules of the road, you see, permit bikes to take the lane - ride right in the center, precluding passing by cars.

Can you imagine the outrage by drivers if, for one week, ALL cyclists stopped at EVERY red light/stop sign while taking the lane? Drivers would have a collective apoplexy - but hey, you wanted the rules of the road followed, you got it. No more complaining, "Why can't they stay to the right?!?" Fair is fair.

Comment by oboe

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:12:02 EDT

And I've lived and driven in the area to remember when the speed limit on 395 was 50 mph. Once the speed cameras were deployed, it was lowered to 40.

You're mixing up your cause and effect. The likeliest explanation is that the speed limit was lowered for safety reasons; subsequently a traffic study was done and it was observed that scofflaw drivers were engaging in scofflawism; and *then* the speed cameras were erected.

Comment by Matt Johnson

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:59:46 EDT

@Sally:
If drivers want to drive on the road then they must follow the rules of the road. Stop at red lights and obey speed limits just like a bike. I agree put license plates on the cars and let them get red light tickets every time the driver drives through a red light. This would be treating everyone equally on following the rules of the road. If a driver does not want to follow the rules of the road, don't drive your car on a road.

Comment by Sally

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:03:54 EDT

If bikers want to ride on the road then they must follow the rules of the road. Stop at red lights and wait just like a car. I agree put license plates on the bikes and let them get red light tickets every time the biker rides through a red light. This would be treating everyone equally on following the rules of the road. If a biker does not want to follow the rules of the road don't ride your bike on a road.

Comment by Toonces

Thu, 09 Aug 2012 02:15:06 EDT

I think the central issue with the argument that the traffic cameras are not for revenue is that the traffic cameras are for revenue. They brought in more money last year than was budgeted to administer the DC DMV. At least it seems to be employed as a de facto Commuter Tax. As a pedestrian I would be thrilled if driving in DC were made immediately, artificially, and steeply more expensive.

Comment by tresluxe

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:53:57 EDT

@MLD

You specifically claimed the cameras in DC are distributed in a very effective way. I ask to see the data that supports that specific claim that you and others on this blog hang your argument on. People bandy about a 10% number -- as if they had some kind of proof. We know there's lots of data, waiting to be mined to show which cameras have proven to be effective -- and which not. If you're not insisting -- demanding -- that data from our politicians, then it might be because you're afraid you're wrong, in part at least. I'm not afraid to be wrong; the truth will improve this city more than anyone's opining.

The long term goal should be to have data on each individual camera available to the public, so that neighborhood civic associations can have a say in where these cameras are placed. Making the data transparent would also go a long way toward convincing the skeptics -- who, we should note, far outnumber the non-skeptics in DC. Lower the fines *and* open the data.

For the record, I'm in favor of cameras that dole out reasonable fines throughout DC. I like David's idea of a multitude of cameras that each fine a small amount of money. Also, please note that I'm in favor of cameras where there are lots of pedestrians. DC's nightlife districts should have numerous red light cameras, not... well, 1 at my count (out of about 150). Most fatal accidents happen because either a driver or a pedestrian is drunk; therefore, our efforts in increasing safety (to answer David's question), should include a special focus on nightlife districts. Fines there could be much higher during the weekend nights than other times.

Comment by Henry

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:01:33 EDT

Red light cameras do just one thing well: They acquire crash photos, which can be studied to find ways to prevent further crashes. For example, a study sponsored by the TX DOT reviewed 40 crashes videoed by red light cameras and found: "With one exception, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 secs. or more of red." (thenewspaper daht com/news/02/243.asp )
A real late runner (5+ secs. late) doesn't do it on purpose. He doesn't know (most violations are by lost or distracted visitors - the mayor of Hallandale FL just revealed that 80% of their camera tickets go to visitors) or doesn't remember (a distracted or impaired "local") that a camera is up ahead, so the presence of a camera won't stop him. To cut these real late runs and the crashes they cause, identify your worst intersections and improve the visual cues that say,"signal ahead." Florida's DOT found that painting "signal ahead" on the road cut running by up to 74%. Also, cheaply, make the signal lights bigger in dia., add backboards to them, make the street light bulbs brighter, and put up a lighted name sign for the cross street. If you can afford it, add a signal pole on the NEAR side of the corner.
Cameras have side effects: They (indirectly) block emergency vehicles - cars stopped at a camera hesitate to get out of the way! Rearenders, local $$$ sent away to Oz, AZ or Goldman-Sachs, and tourists and shoppers driven away.
Want safety, no side effects?
Install the visual cues.
To cut car/pedestrian accidents, train your kids (and yourself) not to step out just 'cuz the walk sign came on.
Who needs cameras and their side effects?

Comment by S Peron

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 18:30:31 EDT

@MLD:

I really have to jump in here because that Insurance Institute for Highway Safety brochure you provided is frankly not very convincing re the efficacy of red light cameras. There is little primary data, no description of the analysis done, nothing. Just a bunch of inflaming anecdotal stories -- the very opposite of good science. Lots of statistics on red light fatalities, but really the only thing about cameras shows that there was a decline in fatalities in MOST cities with cameras from '92-96 to '04-08. Not at intersections with cameras, not in the time frame around camera installation, but just generally. I find such data very suspicious, frankly.

As for speed cameras, I agree that it may be a good idea to have some in neighborhoods though I cannot for the life of me understand how a camera is better than a speed bump - one "suggests" behavior, the other forces it. And I can attest that the new moving cameras occasionally present on 395 are more dangerous than not. That road is designed for 60-70 MPH, and any engineer worth his/her salt will tell you the 85% rule (make speed limit the 85th quantile of the speed-limit free velocity distribution). If you make it lower it is ignored, but if you really enforce it, then it is only respected on stretches where enforcement exists, vastly exacerbating traffic (just like on ramps, lane switching) due to the velocity differential it induces. Which is exactly what happens there now. If they're gonna enforce it, they should enforce it everywhere, and not piecemeal like they do - that is more dangerous than not enforcing at all, especially since that is a freeway with no pedestrians or cyclists.

I would love to see a flushing out of the data regarding both speed and red light cameras, though cursory google searches show there is reasonable evidence in both directions (e.g., http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/2007Virginia.pdf, http://www.police.wa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=r%2F4Haoo1i%2FY%3D). Problem is there are a lot of interested parties with vested interest on both sides here: the pro-camera crowd includes companies that are very profitable, as well as cities that want lots of money. The anti-camera crowd includes driver associations and other automobile interests.

Though I do have to say that with regards to direct monetary gain, I think the burden is on the pro-camera people because there is simply much more money to be made from installing cameras than leaving things as is. So in my mind, I would have to see pretty compelling independent evidence that cameras work - speed and red light - to be convinced. And I think that the data will probably show that there are cases where it helps (e.g., Mass Ave or K street), and cases where it hurts (e.g., I-395).

Comment by ceefer66

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:53:39 EDT

Here's a good example of a speed camera located for the purpose of revenue generation and not for the benefit of safety:

Every morning (and some evenings) during rush hour, there is a mobile speed camera mounted on a police car parked on East Capitol Street under the 295 overpass. The police car is hidden behind an abutment where no one can see it - until the last second when it's too late to react in time to avoid a camera ticket. Regulars know about the camera and therfore slow down to ridiculously low - and dangerous - speeds of as little as 10 mph in a posted 40 mph zone.

As mentioned, that section of East Capitol Street is under an overpass. There are no homes or businesses in that location and pedestrians and bicycles are expressly prohibited (signs are posted). Heading westbound, the East Capitol crosses the Anacostia to RFK. Of course, there are no homes, businesses, bikes, or pedestrians. Now, this would be a great location for a speed camera because it's easy to reach a speed of 60 or even 65 mph once out of range of the afore-mentioned speed camera. And drivers do.

About 1.5 miles west, East Capitol Street becomes a busy neighborhood. The Stadium-Armory Metro Station, Eastern High School, two large churches, a parochial elementary school, numerous homes, and several apartment complexes are all within about a 5-block stretch. The area is full of pedestrians (some children and elderly, some pushing strollers and walking dogs) and people riding bikes.

Is there a speed camera deployed in THAT neighborhood - where speeding cars could CERTAINLY pose a danger to pedestrians, bike riders, and other drivers?

HECK NO!

And we all know why:

Because a police car in that area would be in plain sight. There's no place to hide. Anyone driving through the area would see the police car in plenty of time to slow down. Hardly any tickets - and hardly any money for the District coffers - would be generated.

But DC speed cameras are ALWAYS deployed in "areas where they most needed" and "best serve the community" all "for safety's sake", aren't they?

Hard to believe. At least not in the case of East Capitol Street.

Comment by Scoot

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:42:44 EDT

There has to be an appropriate balance between speeds and safety--lower isn't necessarily better.

This discussion is about improving *safety* -- hence the headline "How else can DC's camera program improve safety?" Perhaps there ought to be a separate discussion for how the camera program can improve, say, throughput -- which directly impacts delay and time, but in the scope of safety alone, slower is necessarily better.

As far as the time wasted getting to one's destination is concerned, that is affected by a lot of factors, such as traffic patterns (e.g. slow moving vehicles, erratic drivers and so forth), road design, the timing of traffic lights, and density of development... things that have little or nothing to do with the speed limit.

Interestingly, in this country, we have more roads than ever before, our speed limits are higher than ever before, and yet we also waste more time in our vehicles than ever before.

Comment by ah

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:26:35 EDT

Reducing speed is safer for all road users, ergo they create safety.

Requiring everyone to drive around in giant marshmallows would also be safer for all users. But, like lower speed limits, fails to recognize the costs in delay and wasted time lower limits create.

There has to be an appropriate balance between speeds and safety--lower isn't necessarily better.

Comment by ah

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:24:46 EDT

Those who feel that DC-295 and I-395 look like speed traps are correct, but those who think that traffic on these roads really is too fast are correct as well.

So perhaps raising the speed limit to a reasonable level is an important component of any fixes.

Comment by Scoot

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:23:16 EDT

Require cyclists to have number plates, and then ticket them for running red lights (and even speeding) as well.

I'd be totally fine with that when it can be conclusively shown that such cyclists pose a comparable safety hazard to the thousands of drivers in this city who regularly speed, run red lights, make illegal left/right/u- turns, illegally change lanes, pass too closely to cyclists, pass cyclists illegally, fail to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, block intersections, fail to signal, drive drunk, drive recklessly, or otherwise pose a threat to other road users....

Comment by Jim Titus

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:32:37 EDT

Those who feel that DC-295 and I-395 look like speed traps are correct, but those who think that traffic on these roads really is too fast are correct as well. I suggest keeping and maybe even adding cameras to those roads, but also adding big flashing signs with messages that alternate between the observed speed, a zero tolerance warning, and the $fine.

Comment by ceefer66

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:26:59 EDT

@jimble,

"40 mph on I-395 is artificially low (maybe "arbitrarily" low would have been a better description). The road is built to handle much higher speeds. I can't see any reason for such a low speed limit but if someone cares to explain why it should be so I'm willing to listen."
----

You make a good point.

And I've lived and driven in the area to remember when the speed limit on 395 was 50 mph. Once the speed cameras were deployed, it was lowered to 40.

The speed camera supporters have never been able to explain why that action was either necessary, reasonable, or not predatory.

My conclusion is that the purpose of lowering the speed limit was specifically for the purpose of raising revenue and had nothing at all to do with any interest in "safety". So far, no one has proven that assessment wrong.

Comment by MLD

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:22:04 EDT

@tresluxe:
Let's see the data on that. You can't claim safety is improved without data to back it up.

When I look over traffic camera placement in DC, I see that almost none are where most accidents occur. Shouldn't this be the lithmus test? Let's put them on streets where lots of traffic and peds converge. Places like the Mall or U Street, Dupont, Adams Morgan, etc.

Are those the places with the most accidents caused by excessive speed? Let's see the data to back that up! The reality is that those areas have high accident rates because there are lots of pedestrians around and lots of dumb driver behavior, not because of excessive speed.

The research shows speed cameras reduce speeds on roads - if you find something to the contrary let me know but the studies have been posted on this blog a zillion times before. Reducing speed is safer for all road users, ergo they create safety.

Red light cameras reduce accidents: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4601.pdf

As for the "make it revenue neutral" argument, fine, we'll make it revenue neutral by spending that revenue on even more cameras. You're welcome!

Comment by jimble

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:18:47 EDT

40 mph on I-395 is artificially low (maybe "arbitrarily" low would have been a better description). The road is built to handle much higher speeds. I can't see any reason for such a low speed limit but if someone cares to explain why it should be so I'm willing to listen.

To be honest, the speed enforcement has gotten me to slow down on the entire DC segment of 395, but it doesn't seem like it's convincing many other drivers, because everyone speeds past me going much faster than 40 before the cameras, slows to a crawl going past them, and then speeds back up again. That doesn't seem to be very good for safety.

Comment by Jacob

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:10:34 EDT

As I've said before if you don't want the camera program to be perceived as a cash grab make it revenue neutral. As long as the government is profiting from the camera people who think they are being placed for revenue generation, rather than safety, purposes will have a strong argument.

Comment by Kyle-w

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:05:22 EDT

David,

I have mentioned this on previous posts, but I do think it bears repeating. If you want to get the moderate people to understand that this is about safety, get rid of the 10% of cameras that are in predatory locations (295, Porter, etc)

If a moderate, normal person gets ticket for going 42 on Georgia, they will likely agree that that is too fast, and that they were creating a danger. That may lead them to understand the system. If that same person gets ticket on 295, you have just pissed them off, and created another believer that these cameras are truly about money.

@OneLastTime

I would say take a look at how many people were accidentally killed by handguns in 2011, and how many people were killed by bike riders. I think we have our answer on what of those two needs more regulation.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:02:38 EDT

12 posts before we were assured that the only DC cameras were on highways where the speed limits are artifically low (whatever that means)despite no evidence beyond "but people drive faster than that" to assert that claim.

Comment by tresluxe

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:58:50 EDT

@MLD

Let's see the data on that. You can't claim safety is improved without data to back it up.

Comment by onelasttime

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:50:20 EDT

oboe,

If you were being consistent with your political euphemisms you would have said "right to self-defense" to go along with "freedom of movement." Then your statement would be a lot less convincing.

Comment by MLD

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:41:09 EDT

@jimble
Most of the cameras are in areas where they enhance safety and few are on limited access highways.

Comment by jimble

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:36:26 EDT

If they want to convince people that "safety is the goal, not revenue" then they should put cameras where they will actually enhance safety and not just raise revenue, like on Georgia Avenue instead of on limited access highways with no pedestrians and artificially low speed limits.

Comment by Fred

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:17:19 EDT

"A friend, who works outside the District in a car-dependent area, got 11 camera tickets before finding out about even the first one. If she was driving 11-15 miles over the speed limit, that would come out to $1,375 in fines. What does this achieve?"

I agree that the slow processing is unfortunate but it does let the law enforcement and insurance know that this person is a habitual speeder and truly a menace to safety. The difference to a pedestrian between 25 and 40 miles is life or death. Sorry but no sympathy from me.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:04:59 EDT

Gun policy and cycling policy are two different beasts and should not affect each other except when they overlap in reality.

Freedom of movement is a more basic freedom than handgun ownership. In my experience it's usually the folks who cling desperately to the latter who are the quickest to curtail the former.

Comment by aaa

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:08:52 EDT

more red light cameras please, especially in areas with heavy pedestrian use.

Comment by onelasttime

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:49:05 EDT

oboe,

You're just throwing political mud. Gun policy and cycling policy are two different beasts and should not affect each other except when they overlap in reality.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:40:20 EDT

Require cyclists to have number plates, and then ticket them for running red lights (and even speeding) as well.

We'll get this right after we have mandatory registration, tracking, and national ID cards for every handgun owner.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:39:26 EDT

Can you please, for God's sake, address the issue of *why* speed cameras are not in the neighborhoods? We've discussed the matter here and the most plausible explanation is that 25mph + 11 mph = 37 mph isn't a speed many drivers are exceeding. I suppose it's also possible that there are technical limitations that make it infeasible.

But for some reason, we can't actually get a straight answer out of anyone. The longer the question goes unaddressed, the more it undermines support for enforcement.

Comment by ah

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:39:22 EDT

Require cyclists to have number plates, and then ticket them for running red lights (and even speeding) as well.

Comment by Curious George

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:37:15 EDT

Slave a 30mm cannon to each red light camera?

Comment by nlivigne

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:36:06 EDT

Create a reward for following the rules. A carrot instead of a stick: http://www.thefuntheory.com/speed-camera-lottery-0

Comment by Thayer-D

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:19:02 EDT

Isn't every road littered with speeding limit signs? I'm always aware of the speed limit becasue it's always posted ad nauseum. Also, I'm fine with the idea that traffic cameras are about revenue, it doesn't make speeding any less illegal. But to add somthing constructive, the best thing I've found to slow traffic are large speed bumps and on street parking. Also, we could reverse the trend since WWII of the street section going towards the asphalt versus the sidewalk and green median. My only beef with street cameras is it gives off a big brother vibe.

Comment by drumz

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:17:21 EDT

Admitting that I'm totally ignorant of how the law currently is or could be amended to make this work but you could opt to have points put on your drivers liscense rather than pay a fine? That way you pay with time rather than money? And if you reach a certain points limit you have to then go to some sort of hearing/mandated driver's school?

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:14:47 EDT

Cameras making money to buy more cameras will incite a lot of hatred.

You can create understanding for cameras by explaining again and again and again, and then some, that they are for safety, and back this up by facts. Count how many speeders there are before and after installation of the camera. Publish that information and update regularly. Relate that to crashes. Publish the ticket rates, and show that they go down over time, indicating successful enforcement. Locals will pick up the better safety.

You are right that tickets need to arrive quickly. I do no understand why it should take more than a few days. The goal should be to have a ticket arrive with the offender within a week.

Finally, ensure that traffic cameras are only used for traffic enforcement, and that they will not be used for other issues. There is no need to create a UK-style CCTV nanny state.