The problem with these cameras is that they don't provide any feedback. When a cop pulls you over, you know right then that your behavior needs to change. And those driving by someone just pulled over get a gentle reminder to think about how it could have been them. Here you keep on blissfully unaware until weeks later when the city bills you. It'll be easy to just start to think of it as another cost of driving, the same way so many urbanites consider parking tickets a lottery that produces a cheaper alternative to paying the meter.

Even though it can be easily demonstrated it would be cheaper to pay the meter in the long run, it's the same "something for nothing attitude" that drives state lotteries, coupled with the idea that for some people, they like to think they've gotten away with something. This fosters the same attitude about driving in general, that as long as you don't get caught by a camera, it's okay. The first sign of this attitude toward cameras will be a push to make them not count against one's driving record the same way an in-person ticket does.

But hey, when you have no problem with social engineering when it comes to everything automotive, what's not to like?

UK Camera Atlas

I couldn't find one for D.C., in my quick search, but if I can think of it, thousands of others will the ability to produce one can too. On the otherhand, sales of radar-detectors crashed when the speed-limit was no longer being set for social engineering purposes.

Raoul:

Problem? They work.

The proper question is whether any of this has improved the safety statistics.

Public surveillance cameres should be opposed on principle.

Excet that there is no defensible principle.

Problem? They [cameras] work.

Now think what you could accomplish with them if you just moved them all to the border...

joe:

Absolutely--we use them there too to good effect.

Set the speed limits properly (i.e., to reflect what the "Invisible Hand" of the driving public tells you they should be), and there would be no significant opposition to speeding cameras.

The reason we may not let the market set driving speeds is that driving speed has such a strong emotional compenent. The wahoos drive too fast not because of a rational assessnment of transportation goals and costs but as an expression of psycho-sexual urges.

Allowing a kakistocracy of the road is unthinkable. In our state the speed limit on limited-access highways is 65 rural/55 urban.

The 65 is fine; the 55 is a bit slow.

But that doesn't much matter, because the actual speed on I-95 in the City is in the high 60's.
This at peak traffic, cars stacked up, a length-and-a-half apart. We should benefit by more and better enforcement, not less.

Concerning spy cameras, why are we afraid of recordation of the truth unless we are prepared to lie? If someone else was driving your car that day, fight the ticket. Our vehicle code creatd a rebuttable presumption that a registered owner was driving his car. A simple testimonial denial explodes the presumption, so if you weren't driving, say so; if you were, pay the ticket.

Lou: The "wahoos" don't define the distribution. The meat of the curve is where you set it--if only 50% or less of drivers are going 65 or slower, then 65 is far too low of a speed limit. If 90% or so (I don't know what number should be chosen) are driving 65 or slower, then that tells you that 65 is about right.

Lou:

Bingo! Precisely because they're afraid of the truth.

b:

Laws are not to be set by what people do o average.

oj: Sure they are. Why else is alcohol legal, tobacco moving towards illegality, and "hard" drugs always illegal? There's nothing immoral about driving 80 on a rural interstate.

Because the laws changed and controlled behavior.

Those behaviors that the average person doesn't do become illegal. Those that the average person does do (such as driving 80 under certain conditions), don't. Or, in this case, the law doesn't get enforced, which is much worse for society than just setting the limits in a reasonable way.

No, people would behave irresponsibly if you let them. We don't.

By "We" you mean the average American, of course.

Yes, we don't allow ourselves such behaviors--we pass laws to limit even ourselves.

So after going round & round we finally recognize that we agree on the general philosophy, but we differ in the details, particularly whether there is a majority constituency in favor of lower speed limits. There just ain't.

Speed limits? I'm pretty certain there are.

Driving the I 95 corridor from central Florida to New England many many times, I can say that the real average speed is close to 80. It's a safe speed for those driving a decent car with good tires.

Slow drivers, especially in the left lane and speed traps are the real dangers not speed. Of course, those impaired by alcohol or drugs should never be allowed behind the wheel.