Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

No one is discussing possible pedestrians. If you use that argument, the only safe choice is to stay home. Children might be using I95 to play a pickup baseball game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

That’s a pretty impressive knot you are tying yourself into to excuse speeding through residential areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

They were construction workers, but their deaths were a cause of both the kind of excess speed and reckless speed that is endemic on MD highways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's already income based because poor people don't pay the tickets right now.

BTW, for all the super slow drivers out there, you don't get a ticket unless you're going more than 10 over. It's not written into law (like Maryland's tolerance of 12 over is), but DC is on record as saying this is the threshold. I always go 8-9 over on 16th street, where the speed limit is artificially low at 30.

The speed limit is the speed limit. If you speed (and 38-39 in a 30 is speeding by a lot), you're breaking the law. Are there any other laws you routinely break, and does the exemption from obeying laws only apply to you, or does it apply to others, too?

Be careful -- you might fall off your high horse. Do you ever talk on the phone or text while driving? I don't, and I can tell you that my drives down 16th street are filled with people who can't stay in their lanes while going 25 mph, and when I pass them, they're buried in their cell phones. It's too bad the laws about cell phone use while driving are not enforced because, in my experience, the people who can't put down their phones are the far greater menace on the roads.

+1

Everyone is so sanctimonious on this thread. Everyone breaks the law. Ever cross the street not at a cross walk? Cross when the light is green? Drive through a yellow light? You broke the law. You’ve probably also gone over the speed limit. It’s ridiculous to lecture people on slowing down. And I agree, get off your phones. The slowest drivers are ALWAYS staring at their phone.

Speeding in residential areas is not just illegal, it’s incredibly selfish. The chances of seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian or cyclist increase quadratically with speed. Hit a pedestrian at 30mph in a modern SUV and there’s a good chance that they don’t survive. At 20 mph, they’ll be hurting but not dead. Speed limits are not set for the convenience of your driving, but to protect the lives of others. Those who flagrantly disobey them deserve not only fines, but to have their licenses taken off them. You can call me sanctimonious all you want; I can get you the names of plenty of dead pedestrians and cyclists whose lives I wish had been treated with more sanctity. Slow the hell down!

These arguments never have any limiting principle. By this logic, we should set speed limits no higher than 20 mph on every road, including highways. We should also be aggressively ticketing pedestrians who jaywalk (how often is a pedestrian killed when crossing in a crosswalk when they had the walk signal?), and enforcing laws that require bicyclists to stop at stop signs and traffic lights and wear helmets.

Slightly different ideas behind enforcing speed limits and enforcing jaywalking and bike helmet laws. You want to endanger yourself by crossing the street unsafely, I suppose that’s up to you. You want to endanger everyone on the street by driving too fast, that’s not quite the same thing.

NP. It I disagree with the argument you only endanger yourself if you jaywalk. A car might see a pedestrian in its path and try to swerve to avoid. Then hit another car or someone on a sidewalk or a tree. Jaywalking does not only injure the person jaywalking.

DP. 1. Most of what you consider "jaywalking" is actually legal crossing. 2. "Cars" don't see anyone. Drivers see people - or don't see people. 3. Although there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases, when a person who's driving hits a person who's walking, the person who's walking is injured, and the people who are in the car are not injured. Even when the crash kills the pedestrian, the person or people in the car are usually uninjured.

If you are choosing to legally cross on a four lane road not at a red light then I think you are taking your own risks. Whether it’s illegal or not.

Now you're shifting the goalposts, eh?

But you're also supporting the PP's point. Pedestrians mostly endanger themselves, drivers mostly endanger other people.

As for me, when I'm driving, I feel like it's my duty to take care not to hit anybody, whether they're crossing legally or illegally, safely or unsafely.

Does that mean you drive 20 mph on I-95 just in case a pedestrian might be on the road somewhere?

PP you're responding to. It means I don't drive 95 mph on I-95, and it also means I pull over (if I can) or slow down (if I can't) when there's a vehicle on the shoulder, as required by state law.

You might have heard that six pedestrians were killed in a crash on the Baltimore Beltway last week.

They were construction workers, but their deaths were a cause of both the kind of excess speed and reckless speed that is endemic on MD highways.

They were construction workers. They were also pedestrians. When you hear about pedestrians killed on the Beltway or 270 or other interstate highways like that, they are almost always either construction workers, or people whose cars broke down or crashed, and they got out of their cars and were killed.

[Anonymous]

Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Traffic cameras give drunk drivers a free pass. People know they can drive drunk and no one is going to do anything about it. They’re by far the most dangerous people on the road

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

[Anonymous]

This is impossible to calculate. Traffic cameras cannot verify who the actual driver is. It’s why you can’t get points, license suspension (eg the driver with $12K in camera violations who killed a rideshare driver and 2 passengers on Rock Creek Pkwy a week or two ago - cameras couldn’t assess him points leading to license revocation). How would a camera know the income of the actual driver behind the wheel if they cannot id the driver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

200 murders is 200 too many. 40 traffic deaths is 40 too many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is impossible to calculate. Traffic cameras cannot verify who the actual driver is. It’s why you can’t get points, license suspension (eg the driver with $12K in camera violations who killed a rideshare driver and 2 passengers on Rock Creek Pkwy a week or two ago - cameras couldn’t assess him points leading to license revocation). How would a camera know the income of the actual driver behind the wheel if they cannot id the driver?

The camera leads to a citation for the car owner. If the car owner wasn't the driver, they can provide evidence showing that they were not the driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

So, we should spend more on crime enforcement instead of speeding enforcement. Cameras are just a cash grab not a safety concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic deaths are rare. There’s usually about 40 per year. Only one quarter of those involve speeding. Typically, another quarter are because the driver was drunk or high and another quarter are the pedestrian/bicyclists fault. The rest are miscellaneous reasons. So traffic cameras have no effect on most traffic deaths.

Do you think murders are common? Are you personally worried about being murdered? Because we have more than 200 of those per year. Police statistics show speeding drivers in DC kill 10 people per year.

So, we should spend more on crime enforcement instead of speeding enforcement. Cameras are just a cash grab not a safety concern.

No, cameras are a safety concern. Here's a great way to avoid having your cash grabbed: DON'T SPEED.