Top traffic cameras bring in $1 million PER WEEK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

But you already have a device that tells you your speed and no, you don’t have to stare at it for it to do the job.

Just slow down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how progressive Democrats raise taxes on poor and middle class people. By pretending that's it's all about safety.

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2024/08/01/speed-traffic-camera-tickets-potomac-river-freeway

It is a voluntary tax. Why should anyone care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A speed camera is unsafe, distracts drivers, and interrupts their driving, but a radar speed sign is safe, doesn't distract drivers, and doesn't interrupt their driving? Please explain how that works.

A sign that tells the driver their speed is just another data point they can input and adjust their driving if necessary. A camera compels a driver to adjust their driving for its demands to retrieve the data to determine if it’s needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

But you already have a device that tells you your speed and no, you don’t have to stare at it for it to do the job.

Just slow down.

You’re assuming I’m speeding, which is incorrect. While driving with the flow of traffic, I might be a little over the limit (most likely not enough to trigger a ticket), I’m probably among the slower cars on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

It is mostly delivery drivers getting tickets.Uber drivers or contract drivers for Amazon or grocery deliveries. Those people are on the road a lot and in unfamiliar areas. Though it does not excuse running stop signs or speeding. Also apps will let you where all these things are.

You will be really upset with what is coming from the car insurance companies. They are offering discounts for tracking your driving including speed. Your insurance will be going up a lot in the coming years,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

Got any other wild what ifs? Like what if the effing sky falls while you’re passing a speed camera? In all my years I’ve never been tailgated so close that a “tap” of the brakes causes a collision.

Has this ever happened to you or are you making crap up? Because honestly if you’re going 30%+ over the speed limit and have to tap your brake at exactly the same time a tailgater is also going that much over the speed limit you both deserve the collision.

[Anonymous]

The best example I can think of that speed cameras actually work is Connecticut Ave in Kensington. South of downtown there are I think 4 cameras and rarely does someone go above 45 mph. Occasionally you’ll get a car speeding up and slowing down by the camera but the reality is they are so close it’s not really worth it. (For what it’s worth I’ve also never seen or heard of any camera related crashes due to these sudden stops.) Put enough cameras and there’s no reason to speed between them.

North of downtown there are no cameras (because the speed limit is 40 mph in the first section) and it’s a raceway. I’ve tried to travel the speed limit and you’re getting passed aggressively. The prevailing speed is about 50 mph during the times of day I drive there.

Similarly, the county just did a speed study on a section of Veirs Mill and something like 11% of cars were in violation meaning 12 mph over the limit—the average speed was 52 mph in a 35. The max speed recorded was 94! I’d love to see the study repeated after cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

But you already have a device that tells you your speed and no, you don’t have to stare at it for it to do the job.

Just slow down.

You’re assuming I’m speeding, which is incorrect. While driving with the flow of traffic, I might be a little over the limit (most likely not enough to trigger a ticket), I’m probably among the slower cars on the road.

You're driving with the flow of traffic, in DC, a little over the speed limit, and you're among the slower cars on the road?

Sounds like DC needs more automated speed enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A speed camera is unsafe, distracts drivers, and interrupts their driving, but a radar speed sign is safe, doesn't distract drivers, and doesn't interrupt their driving? Please explain how that works.

A sign that tells the driver their speed is just another data point they can input and adjust their driving if necessary. A camera compels a driver to adjust their driving for its demands to retrieve the data to determine if it’s needed.

In other words, drivers are more likely to slow down for a speed camera than a radar speed sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A speed camera is unsafe, distracts drivers, and interrupts their driving, but a radar speed sign is safe, doesn't distract drivers, and doesn't interrupt their driving? Please explain how that works.

A sign that tells the driver their speed is just another data point they can input and adjust their driving if necessary. A camera compels a driver to adjust their driving for its demands to retrieve the data to determine if it’s needed.

In other words, drivers are more likely to slow down for a speed camera than a radar speed sign.

Because they know it’s there. We can have all the cops doing traffic enforcement but people will still gamble that they won’t get caught because statistically they won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's counter-intuitive, but traffic cameras make streets less safe because:

1. Now, no one is policing drunk and stoned drivers

2. Dangerous drivers will just avoid the streets that have traffic cameras (and they know that no traffic camera = no traffic enforcement). They can do whatever they want on streets that don't have cameras (which is most of them).

Actually, I always felt they made the streets less safe because my automatic reflex when I see one is to tap the brakes and check my speedometer. If someone is tailgating me, a sudden, unexpected brake could result in an accident. Similarly, there may be other things happening on the street that need more attention than my speedometer.

I always felt that posting the signs that display your speed would be safer than just installing cameras, because they keep your eyes on the road and let you know if you need to reduce your speed. I also like the speed bump recommendation from another PP.

So you:
-aren’t paying attention to speed limit signs when driving
-aren’t aware of your speed when driving
-aren’t paying attention to cars around you enough to not notice a tailgater
-are slamming on brakes hard enough to be rear ended in a <35 mph zone
-need expensive devices on the side of the street to tell you how fast you are going rather than paying attention yourself

It sounds like maybe you shouldn’t be driving.

Hey- give me a break, I’m usually drunk!

The driver claiming to be usually drunk wasn’t the one who posted about cameras making things unsafe. I know because I’m the one who posted about tapping the brakes and checking the speedometer. What’s more, I don’t drink (or do drugs), let alone when I’m driving.

I do pay attention to speed limit signs, but sometimes the speed limit changes on a stretch of road and if I missed a sign I wouldn’t know - because I missed it. What’s more, there isn’t a speed limit sign posted at every entrance to a road. Sometimes you have to drive on a road for a while before you see a speed limit sign.

I do not stare at my speedometer so I that I know my exact speed at every moment. I do know approximately how fast I’m going, although it can vary a little bit both ways.

I do pay attention to the cars around me, but if a car zooms up behind me to crowd my tail, I may not notice it immediately, because I’m also not staring into my rear view mirror.

I didn’t say I slammed on my brakes, but a tap is enough to cause an accident if someone is tailgating.

As I said above, I know approximately how fast I’m going, but a device that provides information to drivers about their speed seems much safer than cameras that distracts drivers and interrupts their driving. Spending money on a device that isn’t a moneymaker may seem expensive in comparison. Ultimately it comes down to what you value more, dollars or safety.

But you already have a device that tells you your speed and no, you don’t have to stare at it for it to do the job.

Just slow down.

You’re assuming I’m speeding, which is incorrect. While driving with the flow of traffic, I might be a little over the limit (most likely not enough to trigger a ticket), I’m probably among the slower cars on the road.

And you should be driving at a speed and in a manner (no tailgating) that allows you to safely glance at your speedometer occasionally to verify you are under the limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best example I can think of that speed cameras actually work is Connecticut Ave in Kensington. South of downtown there are I think 4 cameras and rarely does someone go above 45 mph. Occasionally you’ll get a car speeding up and slowing down by the camera but the reality is they are so close it’s not really worth it. (For what it’s worth I’ve also never seen or heard of any camera related crashes due to these sudden stops.) Put enough cameras and there’s no reason to speed between them.

North of downtown there are no cameras (because the speed limit is 40 mph in the first section) and it’s a raceway. I’ve tried to travel the speed limit and you’re getting passed aggressively. The prevailing speed is about 50 mph during the times of day I drive there.

Similarly, the county just did a speed study on a section of Veirs Mill and something like 11% of cars were in violation meaning 12 mph over the limit—the average speed was 52 mph in a 35. The max speed recorded was 94! I’d love to see the study repeated after cameras.

Similar in the stretch of CT Ave just north of Ch Ch Circle. Cameras keep the wary under 30 mph. Once north of Bradley and no cameras? Boom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is mad Democrats are raising revenue without raising taxes

seriously?

No. They're complaining that it's racist. Black people pay the vast majority of the fines, which are very expensive and can ruin people's lives. The Washington Post (and a lot of other publications) have written about this.

Black people need to be given a pass then for speeding tickets.

[Anonymous]

I believe the cameras are leased. How much is the contracting company making?

[Anonymous]

Im a conservative and I don’t mind the cameras. I used to get tickets, and now I don’t, and it’s because I modified my driving behavior 100%. So In my case they were effective.

If you are poor / middle class maybe you should drive the speed limit and then this won’t effect you — that simple.

Also, just because something effects wealthy people less due to them simply having more money isn’t an argument that it’s a tax on the poor. If that were the case literally everything would be a tax on the poor.