(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   Washington DC's speed cameras cost $52 million to operate. No worries, though, they generated over $80 million in safety

23 Nov 2012 11:50 AM   |   1934 clicks   |   WTOP
Showing 1-43 of 43 comments
Refresh
ThatGuyGreg     
Yup, learned out those the other day. farkers.

23 Nov 2012 09:55 AM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
Slower drivers are safer drivers.

23 Nov 2012 11:51 AM
Kentucky Fried Children     
$afety first, citizens!

23 Nov 2012 11:52 AM
Lumber Jack Off     

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


Slow drivers cause accidents.

23 Nov 2012 11:53 AM
Amos Quito     
As usual, the REAL winner is the company that provides the cameras.

23 Nov 2012 11:53 AM
dofus     

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


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

23 Nov 2012 11:55 AM
Kentucky Fried Children     

dofus: AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.

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


Yes.

23 Nov 2012 11:56 AM
Amos Quito     

AverageAmericanGuy: Slower drivers are safer drivers.


www.egmcartech.comView Full Size

23 Nov 2012 11:57 AM
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

23 Nov 2012 12:00 PM
tothekor     
"Taxation Without Representation"

23 Nov 2012 12:01 PM
BeerGraduate     
I for one welcome our, as they pronounce it in The Twilight Zone, "robit" overlords.

23 Nov 2012 12:01 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.

23 Nov 2012 12:02 PM
protectyourlimbs     
no problem if break the laws as long as you send in a check

23 Nov 2012 12:03 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.

23 Nov 2012 12:04 PM
ChipNASA     
We should "NECKLACE SPEED CAMERAS"

i.ytimg.comView Full Size


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

23 Nov 2012 12:06 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.

23 Nov 2012 12:07 PM
Notabunny    [TotalFark]  
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.

23 Nov 2012 12:07 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.

23 Nov 2012 12:08 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.

23 Nov 2012 12:10 PM
traylor     

23 Nov 2012 12:11 PM
DerAppie     

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.

23 Nov 2012 12:15 PM
Great_Milenko     

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?

23 Nov 2012 12:17 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.

.

23 Nov 2012 12:20 PM
andyfromfl     

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?

23 Nov 2012 12:21 PM
boomquita     
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.

23 Nov 2012 12:21 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

23 Nov 2012 12:21 PM
swaxhog     

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!

23 Nov 2012 12:24 PM
aba     

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

23 Nov 2012 12:25 PM
LittleSmitty     

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...

23 Nov 2012 12:48 PM
jjorsett     

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.

23 Nov 2012 12:57 PM
Rich Cream     

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.

23 Nov 2012 01:03 PM
skeevy420     

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.

23 Nov 2012 01:13 PM
skeevy420     

skeevy420: they're their


they're there -- oops, my bad.

23 Nov 2012 01:19 PM
csnake24     

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!

23 Nov 2012 01:36 PM
theresnothinglft     
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.

23 Nov 2012 02:21 PM
Mr. Breeze     
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.

23 Nov 2012 02:42 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!

23 Nov 2012 03:25 PM
gibbon1     

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.

23 Nov 2012 05:07 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.comView Full Size

23 Nov 2012 05:39 PM
Ehcks     

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.

23 Nov 2012 05:42 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...

23 Nov 2012 06:01 PM
machoprogrammer     

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).

23 Nov 2012 07:09 PM
DarkVader     

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.

23 Nov 2012 08:01 PM
Showing 1-43 of 43 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined