If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Washington DC's speed cameras cost $52 million to operate. No worries, though, they generated over $80 million in safety   (wtop.com) divider line 43
    More: Stupid, Washington DC, speed cameras, no worries, procurements, speed cameras cost  
•       •       •

1934 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2012 at 11:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-23 09:55:14 AM  
Yup, learned out those the other day. farkers.
 
2012-11-23 11:51:42 AM  
Slower drivers are safer drivers.
 
2012-11-23 11:52:13 AM  
$afety first, citizens!
 
2012-11-23 11:53:19 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


Slow drivers cause accidents.
 
2012-11-23 11:53:33 AM  
As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.
 
2012-11-23 11:55:32 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


So if I drive backwards, I'll be immortal?
 
2012-11-23 11:56:23 AM  

dofus: AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.

So if I drive backwards, I'll be immortal?


Yes.
 
2012-11-23 11:57:53 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


www.egmcartech.com
 
2012-11-23 12:00:47 PM  

Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.


Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

/don't remember where I read that
 
2012-11-23 12:01:06 PM  
"Taxation Without Representation"
 
2012-11-23 12:01:55 PM  
I for one welcome our, as they pronounce it in The Twilight Zone, "robit" overlords.
 
2012-11-23 12:02:21 PM  
Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.
 
2012-11-23 12:03:11 PM  
no problem if break the laws as long as you send in a check
 
2012-11-23 12:04:22 PM  

DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

/don't remember where I read that


That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.
 
2012-11-23 12:06:15 PM  
We should "NECKLACE SPEED CAMERAS"

i.ytimg.com

/tire, gasoline, match, TAH DAH!!!!
//problem solved.
 
2012-11-23 12:07:23 PM  

swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.


If speeding was equivalent to running red lights, every highway in the land would be full of burning wrecks every 100 feet, every day. You ever get out there are see just how many people are really speeding? Speed cameras are a much bigger fail than red light cameras.
 
2012-11-23 12:07:41 PM  
Meh. Local governments need money to operate. "Tax" is the devil's word, but "Fee" and "Fine" are pure and clean. Silly taxpayers get what they ask for.
 
2012-11-23 12:08:45 PM  
We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.
 
2012-11-23 12:10:31 PM  
fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.


You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.
 
2012-11-23 12:11:49 PM  
 
2012-11-23 12:15:05 PM  

foxyshadis: DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.

/don't remember where I read that

That might cost tax money, and if there's one thing every politician is desperate about these days, it's not raising taxes in any way for any reason, or even the appearance of not lowering them annually. It's become more of a third rail than social security.


But we just read that even with the overhead of the company there is a very substantial profit to be had. No taxes required, it'll pay for itself.
 
2012-11-23 12:17:00 PM  

Dull Cow Eyes: fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.


You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.


Welcome to small town 'murica. You're not from around here, are ya, boy?
 
2012-11-23 12:20:12 PM  
I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
 

Cash grab from who then?!?!
Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?
Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.
 
2012-11-23 12:21:04 PM  

swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.


Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?
 
2012-11-23 12:21:27 PM  
It cost $52 million to install, operate, and maintain the cameras over 3 years, and they brought in $85 million last year. Not sure how the costs break down, but I imagine much of it is related to installing new cameras. I wonder how much it costs to run and maintain existing cameras? Overall it sounds like a profitable enterprise. For safety, of course.
 
2012-11-23 12:21:52 PM  

LittleSmitty: We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.


I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid
 
2012-11-23 12:24:59 PM  

foxyshadis: swaxhog: Well, this is actually good news. The typical story you read about is spending $52 million and only generating $10 million, and having to pay penalties to the camera company of $20 million because they didn't make enough. 

Slower drivers are safer drivers (going the limit). It's the others that continue to speed and run lights and expect the car in front of them to do that and are literally crushed when they don't have the same attitude that causes issues.

If speeding was equivalent to running red lights, every highway in the land would be full of burning wrecks every 100 feet, every day. You ever get out there are see just how many people are really speeding? Speed cameras are a much bigger fail than red light cameras.


As for burning wrecks every 100 feet. The few times I've been in major U.S. cities I was amazed at the number of "burning wrecks" and overturned vehicles listening to the morning traffic report every morning.

Anyway, my bad I read the headline and still have red light camera on the brain. Now that I rtfa, surprise, surprise, it's costing them more money than it should. They only thing that is really bad imho, is the lower fines like the 1 to 10. That's an unfair cash grab and should be removed. We had an era of "photo radar" here several years ago. It really did slow traffic down but there was a decent threshold not getting a $50 fine for 1 mph over. We also banded together and voted it out!
 
aba
2012-11-23 12:25:45 PM  

Dull Cow Eyes: fines for driving 1 to 10 mph over the speed limit were reduced from $75 to $50.


You can get automatically fined for driving 1 mph over the speed limit? That's horrible.


Yep. The guy who is weaving in and out of traffic 10 mph over the limit gets the same fine as a guy who is going 56 in a 55 on a gentle downhill grade. Unfortunately, the insurance penalty is probably just as bad. Three years of higher premiums because you didn't ride the brakes on a hill
 
2012-11-23 12:48:12 PM  

L'mours: LittleSmitty: We had a rash of cameras go up in the last year. There are several on my route to/from work. When they first went up I was amazed at how often they were triggered. 5 to 10 times per light cycle easily. I figure the local government made a lot of coin in the first 6 months. Now, not so much. I rarely see them go off. People figured it out.

Now if the real reason for them was safety, well mission accomplished. If the reason was revenue generation, they will go bye-bye soon enough.

I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid


Actually, I didn't catch the "speed" camera bit (damn cold!), these were redlight cameras. But there are signs indicating the intersection is photo enforced.

All in all, I don't like them (either speed or redlight camera), but it seems to have cut down on running redlights quite a bit, and the net safety effect is positive. And the lack of revenue if it was monetarily motivated makes me smile...
 
2012-11-23 12:57:23 PM  

DerAppie: Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

Which seems weird to me. If the politicians want speed cameras in their state, they should buy and operate them. Not lease them. Especially not if the company gets a cut of the revenue.


Think of the current setup as modern day privateering.
 
2012-11-23 01:03:26 PM  

andyfromfl: Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?


You apparently drive in FLA. There is no answer you will accept.
 
2012-11-23 01:13:13 PM  

L'mours: I'm not sure how it is in the states but here in Canuckistan there has to be a warning sign about 200m from the camera warning you about a speed camera. Pretty easy to avoid


It varies from county to county or town to town here in the states. Where I live there are no signs, you have to find and remember where they are. At my old house there was a camera up the road, but wind storms frequently destroyed it leaving it inopperable for months on end. They'd fix it and within a month is was destroyed by nature again...See, even the earth doesn't like red light cameras.

aba: Yep. The guy who is weaving in and out of traffic 10 mph over the limit gets the same fine as a guy who is going 56 in a 55 on a gentle downhill grade. Unfortunately, the insurance penalty is probably just as bad. Three years of higher premiums because you didn't ride the brakes on a hill


That. There's a spot on my way home from work where on a big downhill grade, the limit changes from 50 to 45, cops sit in a driveway on this hill and wait to get you (you can barley tell they're their, sometimes you can't...). The worst part is that is a 4 line highway and there are 5 speed changes (35-55 in 5 mph increments), and the fastest part of the highway is when it changes to 2 lanes with winding curves.

I almost received a speeding ticket for going 5 mph over the limit once when it was safely required.
Cop -- "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Me -- "Yes, I was going about 50 in a 45"
Cop -- "Why were you going that fast?"
Me -- "Well, you fell this 35mph wind blowing?"
Cop -- "I do".
Me -- "You see, it was also blowing the trailer of that big rig into my lane, and seeing as I was on a bridge and had people behind me, the safest option was to speed and get out of the way." (I was in the slow lane with the trailer whipping into my lane and pushing me into the concrete side barrier next to the lake)
Cop -- "Oh. Well I've already radioed in so I have to write a ticked?"
Me --"Why's that?"
Cop -- "Anytime we radio in a traffic issue to hq we have to. Its our policy."
Me -- "Sir, I'm dealing with some ticket problems and if I receive another ticket I'll have my license revoked.
Cop -- "I'm just going to write you a no seat belt ticket."
Me -- "Are you serious? You see that I'm wearing my belt?"
Cop -- "its either that or a speeding ticket. No seat belt ticket won't get your license revoked. Its only $25."
Me -- "......."
Cop -- "Have a nice day."

If anyone's curious, this happened on Highway 70 on the bridge right past the Express Way going toward Glenwood. Red light camera is the one at the 70\Sunshine 4way next to Lake Hamilton Schools. Speed limit should be 55-70 once you pass Marion Anderson, but its low to generate revenue. There's more bs from people driving the speed limit than speeding in areas where it doesn't need to be low....Like a 4 lane highway with center turning lane. The biggest problem is getting behind the two people driving side by side going 40-45mph in a 50-55 because they saw a cop(or are old)...I've seen a lot of accidents because of the two slow drivers -- causes ass riding and fender benders. Sane speed limits and proper usage of the road's lanes would minimize most accidents. If you're gonna drive slow, keep to the right and stay out of my speed limit driving way.

/No seat belt ticket is $125 now.
//Sorry for the WoT, but asinine laws get me thinking.
///Yes, I do move to the right lane when I see people driving faster than me coming up from behind.
///The weaving in-and-out speeders don't bother me provided they use their damn signals. Let me know you're a weaving idiot and I'll make room for you.
 
2012-11-23 01:19:42 PM  

skeevy420: they're their


they're there -- oops, my bad.
 
2012-11-23 01:36:43 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
 

Cash grab from who then?!?!
Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?
Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.


You are my hero! You summed up everything I wanted to say!
 
2012-11-23 02:21:48 PM  
When you get passed by 20 people while you're doing the speed limit or there's always a guy riding you speed limit doing bumper, there's a problem with the speed limit.

BTW there is a new smaller model of speed camera that is more discreet.
 
2012-11-23 02:42:41 PM  
My daily commute on 295 has a speed cam. About 500 feet before it everyone hits the brakes. About 200 feet past it everyone hits the gas.

Basically the only people getting nailed are the ones who A: don't know it's there, or B: people who forget. In the meantime the rest of the 5 mile stretch features people cruising 75+ in a 55.
 
2012-11-23 03:25:56 PM  

SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
 

Cash grab from who then?!?!
Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?
Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.


You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!
 
2012-11-23 05:07:50 PM  

Amos Quito: As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.


All I have to say is, that's a really inefficient way for the city to collect taxes.
 
2012-11-23 05:39:01 PM  

ChipNASA: We should "NECKLACE SPEED CAMERAS"

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/tire, gasoline, match, TAH DAH!!!!
//problem solved.


This is how they look around DC and Maryland.

How would you necklace this?

images.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2012-11-23 05:42:54 PM  

andyfromfl: Do you have any reason to think that going the limit is safer than going faster than the limit?


The speed limit is a specific number to be attempted to maintain. The actual important part is for everyone to drive at the same speed consistently, and the speed limit is a reasonably high safe speed for the road. Over the limit is dangerous, under is less so, but not safe either.

I still want automated cars.
 
2012-11-23 06:01:50 PM  

machoprogrammer: SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
 

Cash grab from who then?!?!
Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?
Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.

You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!


If only there was some democratic way of selecting the folks that run the city.

Or did everyone vote for the guys who would cut taxes without cutting services.

Let me think where some extra money could come from...
 
2012-11-23 07:09:14 PM  

opiumpoopy: machoprogrammer: SovietCanuckistan: I live in a city with red light cameras, speed on green cameras, photo radar, speed traps, the 2nd most expensive parking in North America and I have NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE TICKET IN 13 YEARS OF DRIVING EVERYDAY
 

Cash grab from who then?!?!
Not the awesome drivers who RESPECT the rest of the citizens we share the roads with.

Got a ticket?
Stop driving like an arsehole, how's that for a start?
Secondly, stop driving like an arsehole.
Thirdly, stop parking like an arsehole.

.

You really don't see the issue with robots issuing tickets? Really? Do you realize how much cities abuse the shiat out of those cameras, such as by artificially reducing the speed limit in said area? I bet you don't mind warrantless searches, either!

If only there was some democratic way of selecting the folks that run the city.

Or did everyone vote for the guys who would cut taxes without cutting services.

Let me think where some extra money could come from...


If only the real world were all rainbows and unicorns like how you view it. City officials are typically corrupt as shiat, and the companies that own and operate these machines offer kickbacks to the elected officials in return for allowing use of the cameras.

And I have no problem with increasing taxes if it means less robots issuing tickets in speed traps. Cities typically will reduce the speed limit and make it not obvious, then put these up in order to generate revenue. They also do the same with red light cameras, by decreasing the yellow light time (which increases accidents, but all in the name of $afety).

Basically, if you are forced to pay a fine for an infraction, you should be able to face your accuser. The robot cannot testify, which makes it stupid. You are also assuming that they are always 100% accurate and never record the speed of something else (i.e. another motorist or something else passing by).
 
2012-11-23 08:01:59 PM  

jigger: ChipNASA: We should "NECKLACE SPEED CAMERAS"

[i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

/tire, gasoline, match, TAH DAH!!!!
//problem solved.

This is how they look around DC and Maryland.

How would you necklace this?

[images.thetruthaboutcars.com image 263x483]


I'd think you just want to put the tire around the control box, that should stop the entire thing from working.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report