UTMC

Well, I can understand why they do it. Don't get me wrong. The first set were installed on a very busy stretch of road that passes by two long-standing schools; upon which they'd apparently recorded speeds up to 70 mph. I could see that.. very busy stretch of road, and I get it.


However, there is still the aspect that a robot unknowingly takes my photo and I get a bill for it. Case closed. Not sure what happens if you go to court. probably a judge with an attitude for the fact that you're even wasting your time, and his.


However, when the school sits far enough back that there are no real concerns... A brand new gloriously huge school just built this year, in fact... and during a time of day when no activity is taking place... I feel a little ripped off. Especially on a street where I was probably the only vehicle at the time, and there's generally only one at a time, for the most part.

Some law states that there is a warning period once the first cameras go live; perps get a warning rather than an actual fine for the first month. However, that one month stands for all cameras and henceforth there is no 'warning period'. What kind of pandering half-assed law is that?

I know what a 40 mph roads is. That was a 40 mph road, otherwise. I was doing 39. Bastards.



I wrote "Free Money; Nazis" in the check memo. Anybody think that's a problem?

Even if a school is set way back from the road, the thing about schools is that they are attended by kids. Kids are dumb. Nothing to be cute about, they are just dumb. That's whey we send them to school in the first place (that and keeping non-voters busy and allowing mummy the time to work her ass off at a shit job and all that).
So even if the school is way back from the road, kids run around, they are likely enough to run into traffic. Plus, they gotta get to and from school, somehow, which means they will be pedestrian traffic at some times of the day. Which will be close to traffic, even if all kids in your district walk to school.
Considering all that, I think speed restrictions near schools are reasonable, at the very least.
Speed cameras are supposed to go into places where there is a greater risk of accidents associated with speeding. This is the case here, so I cannot for the life of me fault the authorities for putting it there.

As for making it certain times of the day, you have a point there, and the technology exists to reset the trigger speeds in the cameras at such times of the day. Times should be carefully chosen as there are sometimes good reasons for a number of kids to hang around school even after classes. You should probably make a suggestion to this effect to the authorities in question, I agree with you on this one, fundamentally.

But 40 mph? That's 64 kph. Over here, the speed limits within city limits, unless otherwise posted (and that you'll find only on bigger trunk roads) is 50 kph. In front of schools, elementary schools in particular, it's often 30 kph (18 mph). Does it really need to be higher? A time-of-day dependent speed limit is likely to confuse some idiots who will then think they may legally go speed x when they get the time of day wrong, it may aid in convincing some asshats it's okay to go faster, after all, the limit has only been on for 10 minutes, and it may end up with people who tend to use that road at times when the limit is higher to go faster even at times when it's lower. One speed limit, valid all day, seems like the better idea to me.

Also, I feel much better about permanently installed speed cameras than the manned or unmanned mobile types. At least, if they do catch me, I'll know I was caught by a system that was properly set up and calibrated for the environment rather than what joe-cop managed to get working with all the other shit in his hair (often happens that tickets are waived because of ill-calibrated equipment).

For complete disclosure, I never got one speed ticket in 12 years of motoring, and I wasn't a "slow" motorist, either. So I cannot fully empathize here.

EDIT:
Also, while I agree that speed limiting is often a buzzkill in general (I'm not a great fan of going fast, but on many roads, the legal speed limit, even if comparatively high, is still fucking slow), and that speed cameras these days are more revenue generators than traffic-safety-helpers, calling the enforcers "Nazis", in writing, too, only makes the actual nazis look good.

Sorry no sympathy. I live across the street from an old folks home right on the cusp of where a 35 zone goes to 25. It's absolutely normal for people to go 50. There's a freeway for that sort of thing just a few blocks away. I wish they'd put up some speed cameras. Also, I used to spend inordinate amounts of time hanging in the vicinity of my middle school so that I could make out with my girlfriend. The "normal hours" concept doesn't really apply.

While I am generally against speed cameras, I think if they are anywhere, a school zone is the best palce for them. There are few enough cops on the road to enfore speed limits on normal streets, but when a school is engorging or disgorging itself with our children then I think people need more than a subtle reminder that now is the time to slow the fuck down. Had a friend of mine severly hospitalized while leaving our high school parking lot because some asshole decided he had to get where he was going ina fucking hurry.
FWIW Derg, here in 'Murrica school zones are 20mph, I think what Trav was saying is the road he was on is normally 40, and he was unaware of the change until it was too late.

Gotta agree with K and Hank on this one. I'm as fond of velocity as the next guy, but school and construction zones have always been somewhat sacrosanct for me. There are plenty of other places to scratch the itch. Not a dig at ya Nate, I'm just as guilty as the next guy of occasional lapses, but I think kids and working stiffs are special cases.

Bigshankhank wrote: FWIW Derg, here in 'Murrica school zones are 20mph, I think what Trav was saying is the road he was on is normally 40, and he was unaware of the change until it was too late.

That's pretty much exactly where I was coming from. If there were buses and shit I would have slowed the fuck down by virtue of common sense. Believe me, I'm not looking for sympathy. I understand the nature of this is controversial. The zone was actually 25 mph.. and what really gripes my ass (and probably baffles those of you of the other side) is apparently they only tag you if you are 12 mph +. So that would mean I was 2 mph too fast. I guess that accounts for the lenience an actual police officer may choose to exhibit.

I don't recall seeing "school zone" or "speed enforced by camera" or even noticing the camera boxes for that matter. That right there ensures I deserved the ticket. I probably wouldn't have noticed children.

Watch out. Maniac coming through.



My point, really, is that everyone was made well aware of the first set of cameras, and they made sense. The very next set were installed at a brand new school without any announcement, in a location that I wouldn't imagine has any documented need, if for the lack of historical data alone. I haven't read the law that governs these things, but apparently, after they install the first set and announce it, they can proceed to install them without announcement or warning period.


The other thing is, had it been an actual police officer, would I have actually gotten a ticket? I guess since the last 4 times I've been pulled over haven't resulted in anything, I should dutifully concede to the robot. Maybe they aren't allowed to give a warning if they pull you over for this specific violation, but I doubt that's the case. It's not a moving violation, with these cameras; it's a citation with no points, like a parking ticket. In fact, that's how they explain it. Sure, it will make people slow down, but it's definitely revenue generation. If you pay it right away without hassle, it's $5 less.


My point, simply: Is it mainly about saving kids' lives, or is it easy money?

Easy money.

The cameras themselves, like red-light cameras, are easy money.

What confuses me about your scenario Trav, are you saying there are no flashing lights, signs or any other indication that you were travelling in a school zone? If there is no identification of the change in the speed limit, I would think you have an argument to make to the court. Take pictures of the area, mainly from the direction you were travelling, to support this. Take lots of pictures.
Then again, if there were signs, you are a heartless baby-killer.

I have issues with this. Not uniformly, but issues nontheless. School zones here are FIFTEEN mph. Try that on a 30+ year old bike, your hope for any accuracy is out the window. But that's just me.
My real gripe is with school zones where there is absolutely no provision for kids to walk. By that I mean no sidewalk, the school is a few hundred feet or more off the road, and everyone lives so far away that nobody walks to school anyway. That pretty much describes every school zone I pass on the way to anyplace around here.
And the red light camera. Jayzus.

Hide yer license plates!

dozer wrote:Hide yer license plates!

Hide yer kids, hide yer wife, hide yer husbands too, 'cause they rapin' e'rybody out here.

Speed zones are idiocy. There are kids in parks all the damn time, no special speed zones there. There are kids pretty much everywhere in fact. It should be a cultural corollary that street are death zones for pedestrians, not playgrounds, and to be trod upon only at great risk accompanied by great caution.

The Dutch tried a project, no speed zones no cameras, no stop signs no stop lights in a whole town. Accidents went *down*. Turns out that people drive slower & more carefully without the safety net of traffic regulation. At least *trained* drivers with IQs @ or above 100. Which leads to...

what's needed in the US is much more stringent driver qualification. Too many 'tards driving cars over here, simple as that.

and cameras, no matter how used, are about one thing: mo' money. Therefore they suck.

From what I've seen in Md, they do warn you with signs that tell you a photo-enforced area is ahead. Maybe they have a few stealthy cameras that I'm unaware of?

I'm sure they are there... but I didn't notice them.

My main point is IF they are trying to get people to slow down, they would alert the paper EVERY time they put a new set in. Being the fact that the local rag has nothing better to write about, pretty much everybody would be aware.

THAT would possibly preempt people from speeding, or at least make them more wary (the goal!) BEFORE they blast through a school zone, not fully realizing it was one.

Regardless of cameras or not, I should not have been speeding. I fully acknowledge that. However, sending me a ticket 2 weeks+ after I did it does nothing to prevent me from having done it in the first place, nor does it stop me in the process of, thus alerting me to my error at a point when it would be relevant.

If I wasn't familiar with the area, I might be really confused. As it is, I still don't remember the specific date or time. I know I've gone that way a few times coming home at lunch, but do I remember any particulars of that day when I committed this devious deed? Fuck no.


Yes, like a lock, it keeps an honest man honest. I will not do it again. However, I just feel that they ought to tell people HEY, WATCH OUT! as that's half the effectiveness. The way I see it, it's a revenue trap for everybody who finds out there are live cameras the hard way, as it is.

I agree, two weeks is a bit long to get that ticket.
But I think it's more than keeping an honest man honest.
It's education.
There are many things that make people learn, but one of the more effective is fear. Fear of loosing money is right up there, because money, unlike death or killing someone else, is something everyone has prior experience with.
Announcing every old speed camera would be counterproductive, as it would result in people feeling "safe" to speed when no such announcement is around and basically get them to train themselves to pay attention to speed limits only when a camera is announced.
The education effect is lost.
Announcing them in school zones, on the other hand, seems like the right thing to do, there and in other areas where speeding causes additional dangers or ends up being quite common (it might just be insufficient or confusing signage, after all).

As for kids being everywhere...schools have a predictable concentration of kids. Unlike parks, where kids may be, they'll definitely be around schools. Having a speed restriction there sounds just reasonably cautious.

As for that experiment in the Netherlands, I don't think one can draw conclusions for the whole world from that, I don't mean the whole world just geographically.
Once people get used to something, they loose their initial caution. Had that town been without it's restrictions long enough, people probably would have ended up going faster again, the exception being outsiders coming for a visit and being extra cautious for lack of experience in this environment. Being overcautious would end up inciting the locals to overtake and stuff, because they know that guy is too cautious, etc. If everywhere were without traffic rules like that place, that would be averted, but again, I think the fear effect would wear off eventually.

I kinda gotta go with you on those points Trav. One thing I have noticed just about everywhere I have lived is that school zones are treated with due respect by most drivers. Everyone slows down and maintains it throughout (until they pass the signs, at which point they fire off like a rocket). But it is because there are signs and flashing lights and no question that thar be kids here and you need to keep your foot off the gas for the next four hundred yards of road. Not notifying drivers defeats the intent of why the zone is there to begin with. Not notifying drivers AND putting a speed camera there is absurd, and smacks completely of money generation.

Reminds me of that old joke;
Pedophiles may be disgusting perverts, but at least they drive slow through school zones.

It may be education, but this is the test and then the lesson. Though yes, thatis the age-old story of life in general.

I guess you are right, if they're planning on installing these at every school zone in town (there are 15, actually) then it may become a little redundant to announce them. However, I would have preferred to have have been educated before the test.


I make my decisions cognizantly, or at least I try. Maybe not in regard to signs but rather literally what I see. Maybe not legally, and maybe not everyone agrees with my judgement. However, the fact that many of my encounters with law enforcement have resulted in an education without the need felt to impose any sort of monetary penalty says something. Maybe it only says luck, timing, and personality, but I like to think it also has to do with the fact that, while I was breaking the law, I was doing so in an understandably reasonable way.


If it's robocop at every turn, none of us are going to be having any fun. I apologize that I have such a hair trigger.



Then again, maybe track participation would flush up; costs would come down, profits would turn and reinvestment would occur. Bike consumption trends rise and change, amature racing would grow and flourish... A new, more educated motorcycle culture would be reborn in america.

Yea I've had two beers and no dinner. There's always a deep six perspective.