MSN Auto has a really good and pretty thorough piece on speeding that’s a worthy read. The subject of traffic enforcement is a staple here at Hit Coffee, so much so that Web recently commented to me that if we weren’t careful, we could write a post about it every day. That we call our series of posts on it “Badged Highwaymen” should tell you where we stand. It’s important that people that are dangers on the road be held accountable, but enforcement as it currently exists is mostly a game of cat and mouse. According to MSN Auto, it’s a game that we the mice are going to lose. The technology is getting so good that we no longer have to be trapped by a cop car hiding behind a giant rock or sign anymore.
Now a part of me is sympathetic to mass enforcement of the law. Indeed, one of the big problems I have with enforcement as it currently exists is that it is sporadic and selective. If there were uniform enforcement of the law with a small but reasonable fine every time you were caught and insurance companies wouldn’t view someone with a ticket as though they are Luke and Bo Duke, I might actually object to it less. Instead we have sporadic enforcement so that when you get caught it catches the attention of the insurance companies which often operate under the assumption that if you were caught doing it once, you are probably doing it all the time. Of course, one big caveat to all of this would be that speed limits would need to be reasonable. And on a deeper level, I would have to be convinced that it really is about more than revenue-enhancement.
One of the reasons that I might be more amenable to more uniform enforcement is that it would probably force some changes on the drivers’ side. I don’t just mean getting us to slow down, though that would be part of it. Rather, I mean that if speed limits were uniformly enforced, you would start seeing a lot more actions on the side of the drivers to get speed limits up to more reasonable speeds. We would demand better and more frequent speed limit postings. And an industry would likely set up to help drivers in their task.
One of the problems with speed limits and speed limit enforcement is that a lot of speeders genuinely don’t intend to be speeding. My main fear with uniform enforcement (other than speed traps) is that it would penalize drivers who do not intend to do anything wrong, do not realize they are doing anything wrong, and would prefer not be doing anything wrong. It’s easy enough to say “Well they should be mindful of their speed” but frankly, if they’re going 30mph on a 25mph road, I would prefer that they be more mindful of the road.
I think that technology could provide a sort of solution for this. We’re already almost there. Some GPS systems actually have the speed limits on roads in the device. If you go over it, it turns red. It mostly pertains to freeways, but there is no reason that we can’t get to the point where all speed limits are included. And instead of it turning read, it bwoops whenever you’re speeding. Other than data volume concerns, which I believe will be addressed with time, the main concern would be data collection. How do they get all of those speed limits.
Now, one way of looking at it is that law enforcement agencies should be anxious to give their speed limits to the GPS makers because that would help reduce speeding. And since they’re not in it for the money, they should be glad to do so free of charge. Right? Getting real for a moment, I honestly think that making that data easily and freely available to the GPS-makers (and anyone else) ought to be another form of posting the speed limit. In other words, if they want to enforce the speed limit, they need to give out the data (or make sure that somebody else did). Otherwise, it’s an unposted speed limit and the speeder can get the charges dismissed on those grounds.
Tthis would come with its own costs in addition to data collection and disclosure on the part of the authorities. If successful, cities would lose a lot of revenue. They would need to raise local taxes. Everyone that gets less than the average number of tickets that thinks that they won’t still end up paying for some of the same things that tickets pay for now are deluding themselves. The money has to come from somewhere. There would be fewer traffic cops sitting around in expensive cars generating that revenue, though there would still be savings. But the speed cameras would have to be paid for.
Of course, all of this assumes that most drivers would, if given notification when they are speeding and reasonable speed limits, slow down. I think that this is true more often than some folks think. Some people like to feel smugly cynical and assume the worst of people, but the reasons that people speed now are plenty. A rule that isn’t regularly enforced isn’t really a rule and speed limits are not regularly enforced. Regularly enforce them and people will look at them differently. They will be more likely to demand that the rules be more fair and they will, because the alternative is a much higher likelihood of getting caught, follow the rules that are in place. People are more willing to follow the rules when they know that everybody else will, too. There’s nothing more frustrating than being the only guy on the road going the speed limit.
About the Author
7 Responses to TBH: The Technology Solution
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
Somebody — Bobvis, Megan, Robin — posted a story a while back that some jurisdictions are removing their automated traffic enforcement devices on the grounds that people started following the law, and depriving the government of the revenue they could get with random enforcement.
So, yes, to the extent that municipalities understand this effect, their speed cameras really are about disinterested devotion to traffic safety.
To the extent that they don’t, they’re idiots in for a big disappointment.
I love the idea of speed limits going to GPS systems. but…will the GPS end recording when you speed? Then the cops just mail you a ticket for the month, no radar gun needed. A rental car company did something analogous, maybe they still do.
If successful, cities would lose a lot of revenue. They would need to raise local taxes. Everyone that gets less than the average number of tickets that thinks that they won’t still end up paying for some of the same things that tickets pay for now are deluding themselves.
I’m of two minds: first, depending on location, taxes might not go up that much if the excess officers can be fired. I mean, their scarce labor freed up for more productive labor. Second, if a town wants to raise money of drivers, they can always enforce turn signals, no turn on red, ‘tail light’s out’ and other things that may or may not be made up.
I’m generally uncomfortable with governments collecting fines in leiu of taxes. It encourages them to pass laws to raise funds instead of making things run more fairly and smoothly. Speed traps are doubly wrong because people who don’t live there shouldn’t be the ones paying for government.
OTOH, it isn’t a horrible idea to let cops pull people over. Last time I got pulled over, I went out with work friends. We left after last call, and I got pulled over at light turning out of the restaurant. Cop said “You know why I pulled you over?” I knew, he pulled me over cuz I was leaving a bar at last call on the weekend. Of course he can’t say that, so he said my tail light was out (it wasn’t). He asked how many I had had, and said he could smell it on me. Cuz he could, guy sitting next to me spilled some horrid tequila thing on my sweater. Poor cop though, I was stone sober, he could hardly beleive it.
I don’t a police state, but people leaving bars at last call should get pulled over. Now the cops shouldn’t be dicks, and shouldn’t give out tickets for that. Wow I moved way off topic.
Further off topic, Trumwill, that place you live now, don’t they have highways where the speed limit is “don’t die”?
That’s one way of looking at it, Phi. Another way of looking at it is that when the speeding cameras stopped generating revenue, they ceased to be important. Bobvis had a post on it and I think that they specifically cited lost revenue, though I can’t be sure.
So yeah, I vote for “big disappointment.” However, from a revenue standpoint, they can still put them up, make a killing, and take them down when they stop. So it’s not all bad for them.
I love the idea of speed limits going to GPS systems. but…will the GPS end recording when you speed? Then the cops just mail you a ticket for the month, no radar gun needed. A rental car company did something analogous, maybe they still do.
Some people want to institute a mileage tax using a GPS in every car. One of the big arguments against it is that it would be used for precisely this purpose. My guess is that as long as the GPS’s aren’t mandated, they’re not going to use the fact that you have one against you.
It’s kind of like Toll Tags. Those things can full-well trap speeders. They use Toll Tags (among other things) for those (X Minutes to Y) signs. But they don’t use them to trap speeders because they know that the second they do people will stop using them.
The only way around this is to mandate it. Or to tell people “Sure, you can use a GPS, but it’s gonna cost ya!” so that they can keep trapping speeders. That’s going to be a tough sell from a policy standpoint. So I think what they’d really need is to mandate them for some tertiary purpose (such as mileage taxation) and then somewhere down the line start using them for speeding enforcement.
If we ever got to that point, I suspect the next move would be cars that won’t let you speed unless you want to. There would be a premium for the ability to stop you from unknowingly speeding. I’m not sure of the safey ramifications of this, but I can’t imagine they would be too bad.
I’m of two minds: first, depending on location, taxes might not go up that much if the excess officers can be fired. I mean, their scarce labor freed up for more productive labor. Second, if a town wants to raise money of drivers, they can always enforce turn signals, no turn on red, ‘tail light’s out’ and other things that may or may not be made up.
Traffic enforcement works differently in different places, but there is one city where I have pretty comprehensive knowledge of how it works because my ex-girlfriend (Julianne) had a father that was a volunteer fireman and a lot of cops are volunteer fireman, too.
In Phillippi, there were two basic ways that you got pulled over. Either an officer was making his rounds and he happened to see you, or you were caught in Step Times. Step Times were when they had PPD cops on the side of the road. In those times, the cops were working overtime. Most cops did because they didn’t make so much money otherwise.
So in Phillippi, what would happen is that they would stop doing Step Nights. You wouldn’t have to pay the cops the overtime and you’d save some money there. You’d probably also need a smaller fleet. In both cases, though, the revenues outstrip the expenses by a pretty large margin. At least that was the impression I got and it logically makes sense, they never said this outright. But you’re paying a cop $30/hr and he’s writing $100 tickets at least four times an hour (that was the standard – they knew exactly where to look).
So they wouldn’t be laying officers off so much as cutting their overtime. To compensate, they may have to pay them more to begin with. They’d be generating revenue from other traffic violations, but that would most likely be from “making the rounds”. I think the big money is mass-production tickets.
OTOH, it isn’t a horrible idea to let cops pull people over.
Agreed. This is one of the better arguments for traffic enforcement. The “You won’t believe what we find on routine traffic stops” argument. Obviously, it doesn’t make the case for cameras, though.
Further off topic, Trumwill, that place you live now, don’t they have highways where the speed limit is “don’t die”?
The speed limits out here are higher, and they’re not very aggressive about actually posting the speed limits, but they’re still there and enforced. Even in that one state where this was temporarily not the case until the federal government threatened to remove funding. There’s one county in particular that is particularly aggressive. But when you have a 75mph speed limit, I have less sympathy for you if you’re caught speeding.
Ron and Will: I think the phrase used was: “Whatever is prudent.” Don’t know if that was actually on the signs or not.
There have been some devious ideas floated in these comments. I will turn it up: speed-limited cars based on what your GPS system reports the speed limit to be.
Regarding the possibility that people ditch their GPS, it could be required to make their GPS start. The poor could be provided with a GPS system because, after all, GPS is a human right.
That’s kind of what I was talking about in my last comment with cars that won’t let you speed unless you want to and mandatory GPSes. Both can be done. Might make the roads a safer place. Lots of lost revenue for jurisdictions, though.