Traffic Camera Enters Drivers Who Obey Speed Limit Into Lottery

[aGameOfThrones]

The winning entry in "The Fun Theory" contest is a traffic camera that instead of just ticketing speeders, it also enters people who drive the speed limit into a lottery. Randomly selected winners get paid out of a portion of the tickets paid by the scofflaws.

Before they put in the camera, the average speed was 32 km/h. After, it was 25, a 22% reduction.

It's a neat idea. I'd also like to see it compared to the before and after on an intersection where they just put in the punitive speed camera, though. Not to mention some of the slowing down might just have been due to people wondering what this device they hadn't seen before was doing on the streets.

What do you think, would this work in the real world?

YouTube - The Speed Camera Lottery - The Fun Theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynzHWwJXaA)

*****

I have an idea... If you don't ask questions to the Government you'll be put in a "lottery" to win a money price. Now, 'you'll ask where will you get the money?' Simple, from those who do ask questions, silly.

[puppetmaster]

nope....where does the lottery money come from?


No victim, no crime......

[roho76]

Obey the state and we'll reward you with other peoples money.

[Kludge]

Eh. "Above average" law. B+ for returning money to taxpayers & reducing speeding (and obviously, gov't revenue) @ same time.

[aGameOfThrones]

nope....where does the lottery money come from?


No victim, no crime......

From those who speed.

[aGameOfThrones]

Eh. "Above average" law. B+ for returning money to taxpayers & reducing speeding (and obviously, gov't revenue) @ same time.

Depends on how much is being return in the lottery prize. Also, it's not returning the money to those whose money is being taken from. Besides people will slow down when they know a "lottery camera" is near by to be entered in the lottery and speed up after. I think speed bumps are more effective.

[roho76]

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Likewise:

If someone goes 35 in an area where people, who think highly of their own ideas, would like the speed to be 30, is there a law broken?

[guitarlifter]

Speed limits are just another unconstitutional law. No one's rights are getting violated by "speeding" except the person getting prosecuted. Pisses me off.

[Kludge]

If private companies owned the roads, don't you think they would also have speed limits & penalties for violating their safety rules?

[guitarlifter]

If private companies owned the roads, don't you think they would also have speed limits & penalties for violating their safety rules?

It does not change the fact that it is still unconstitutional. It's the same deal with airlines still having scanners and metal detectors in a free market. Air transportation is not a right, but a convenience, so airlines have the right to demand such searches as long as consent is received from the people wanting to fly. It still is, however, unconstitutional for the government to have the TSA pat-downs, etc.

I understand that roads are a convenience and not a right in a free market society, and I also understand that privately-owned roads are somewhat monopolistic by nature, meaning they could possibly impose such rules, but how would they enforce it the speed limits if police no longer have the responsibility of doing it? Also, I'm sure a boycott would be in place for those rules. Bikes, subways, flying, and buses would all be used in order to avoid having to pay for using the roads. Also, how would they stop people who don't pay for the roads?

Also, there's only so fast people can safely go, and, instead of the speeding laws being the deterrent from going faster than what's safe, it's the risk of committing a real crime such as property damage or hurting/killing someone that causes people to drive more safely, and it's constitutional because it is not making a no-victim action a crime. It's the same concept with any freedom. Responsibility comes with it, and it's the responsibility of that freedom that

[Kludge]

It does not change the fact that it is still unconstitutional. It's the same deal with airlines still having scanners and metal detectors in a free market. Air transportation is not a right, but a convenience, so airlines have the right to demand such searches as long as consent is received from the people wanting to fly. It still is, however, unconstitutional for the government to have the TSA pat-downs, etc.

The government owns the airports and the government owns the roads, as the Constitution permits. Obviously, the government should be allowed to impose some safety restrictions to use what they have built. For example, it'd be utterly ridiculous to permit the government to build roads and not intend for them to restrict five-year-olds from driving automobiles.


I understand that roads are a convenience and not a right in a free market society, and I also understand that privately-owned roads are somewhat monopolistic by nature, meaning they could possibly impose such rules, but how would they enforce it the speed limits if police no longer have the responsibility of doing it? Also, I'm sure a boycott would be in place for those rules. Bikes, subways, flying, and buses would all be used in order to avoid having to pay for using the roads. Also, how would they stop people who don't pay for the roads?

They'd enforce by issuing a license -- a contract. If you violate the company's rules, you either pay the fine or lose your license, and if you drive on the road without a license, you can be arrested for trespassing. They would probably use a type of "EZ-Pass"-like chip instead of a license, much more effective than how it's done now.

I don't see why people would boycott roads for having safety regulations and fees to use them. They aren't free either to have land for, build or maintain.


Also, there's only so fast people can safely go, and, instead of the speeding laws being the deterrent from going faster than what's safe, it's the risk of committing a real crime such as property damage or hurting/killing someone that causes people to drive more safely, and it's constitutional because it is not making a no-victim action a crime. It's the same concept with any freedom. Responsibility comes with it, and it's the responsibility of that freedom that

I agree. However, when people are reckless, I don't see why it's a big deal if road-owners are more interested in keeping their roads safer than some individuals would like, and use fines and other methods of penalization to keep their roads safe.

[nobody's_hero]

I would feel better about traffic laws if the local communities had more say in the matter. What really pisses me off is when the Feds come in and say "Since you accepted this transportation funding from us (that we took from you in the first place, of course), you must now comply with [insert asinine law here]".

GA's General Assembly did away with our state's seatbelt exemption for pickup trucks over the summer, simply because it was "missing out" on Federal transporation funding.

The more localized the communities which consent to laws, and the less broad-reaching those laws are, there runs less a risk of infringing upon the rights of others. So, if a retirement community (one of those 55+ adults-only gated communities) within my city wanted the speed limit in their neighborhood to be 2 MPH, that's fine, since I'd never visit that retirement community anyway, and their laws wouldn't apply to me outside of their neighborhood.

[Slutter McGee]

I would feel better about traffic laws if the local communities had more say in the matter. What really pisses me off is when the Feds come in and say "Since you accepted this transportation funding from us (that we took from you in the first place, of course), you must now comply with [insert asinine law here]".

GA's General Assembly did away with our state's seatbelt exemption for pickup trucks over the summer, simply because it was "missing out" on Federal transporation funding.

The more localized the communities which consent to laws, and the less broad-reaching those laws are, there runs less a risk of infringing upon the rights of others. So, if a retirement community (one of those 55+ adults-only gated communities) within my city wanted the speed limit in their neighborhood to be 2 MPH, that's fine, since I'd never visit that retirement community anyway, and their laws wouldn't apply to me outside of their neighborhood.

Amen. Its not that I think redlight cameras are a gross abuse of government power. Its that I think they open up the potential for even more aggresive measures in the future. That and decisions arent being made at the local level.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Elwar]

Maybe they can put cameras in our homes and put our names in a lottery for any good deed we might do.

Perhaps a lottery entery for every kind word spoken of the government.

[TonySutton]

Do they mention if traffic increased as people drove around the block over and over?

[puppetmaster]

From those who speed.


oh the horror......:eek:

[Rael]

It does not change the fact that it is still unconstitutional.

There is nothing unconstitutional about speed limits. Speed limits might be arbitrary, ineffective, or bad policy, but having a speed limit is not inherently unconstitutional.

[fisharmor]

From those who speed.

I don't buy it.
After you pay for the traffic cameras, the infrastructure, the cops or other ticket issuers, the court houses, the judges, the bailiffs, the clerks, the DMV infrastructure needed to revoke licenses, etc, etc, etc....
...how much of that $100 ticket is really left?

There's a shit ton of overhead involved in issuing those tickets. If there's a lottery for even 50% of the ticket money, there's still subsidizing going on to keep the system in place.

They would also have to charge every single offender via automated cameras in order for the lottery winnings to be a real incentive.

I just don't see how the math adds up.

[puppetmaster]

There is nothing unconstitutional about speed limits. Speed limits might be arbitrary, ineffective, or bad policy, but having a speed limit is not inherently unconstitutional.

Where is the victim in this crime of speeding....How can you be punished for something that has no victim. the state must bring forth the victim and they cannot do it...to be a victim you must experience a loss and prove it.

it is a scam to generate cash for the corporate state...that is it.

[Kregisen]

I just don't see how the math adds up.

Since when has that stopped them in the past?

[malkusm]

Wait, since when are speed limits "unconstitutional"? I don't see anything about them in the Constitution, so the power must be reserved to the states. States set speed limits.

What am I missing? :confused: "Anti-libertarian" =/= "Unconstitutional"

[guitarlifter]

Wait, since when are speed limits "unconstitutional"? I don't see anything about them in the Constitution, so the power must be reserved to the states. States set speed limits.

What am I missing? :confused: "Anti-libertarian" =/= "Unconstitutional"

Actually, you look like you have a point. I may have forgotten about the state part. Just to make sure that this is correct, is it so that, although the Federal Government cannot make any law that infringes upon the rights of others, but state governments can because they hold the power to do so, meaning that they are not limited by the constitution? So are you saying that the federal government has no say in traffic laws whatsoever, but state laws do?

[Rael]

Where is the victim in this crime of speeding....How can you be punished for something that has no victim. the state must bring forth the victim and they cannot do it...to be a victim you must experience a loss and prove it.

it is a scam to generate cash for the corporate state...that is it.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting victimless crimes either.

[AxisMundi]

It does not change the fact that it is still unconstitutional. It's the same deal with airlines still having scanners and metal detectors in a free market. Air transportation is not a right, but a convenience, so airlines have the right to demand such searches as long as consent is received from the people wanting to fly. It still is, however, unconstitutional for the government to have the TSA pat-downs, etc.

I understand that roads are a convenience and not a right in a free market society, and I also understand that privately-owned roads are somewhat monopolistic by nature, meaning they could possibly impose such rules, but how would they enforce it the speed limits if police no longer have the responsibility of doing it? Also, I'm sure a boycott would be in place for those rules. Bikes, subways, flying, and buses would all be used in order to avoid having to pay for using the roads. Also, how would they stop people who don't pay for the roads?

Also, there's only so fast people can safely go, and, instead of the speeding laws being the deterrent from going faster than what's safe, it's the risk of committing a real crime such as property damage or hurting/killing someone that causes people to drive more safely, and it's constitutional because it is not making a no-victim action a crime. It's the same concept with any freedom. Responsibility comes with it, and it's the responsibility of that freedom that

While I certainly agree that many small municipalities depend on speed limits for revenue, speed limits are also judged by such factors as road types and the type of neighborhood.

Do you really think it wise to allow a "safe but sane" speed limit in a residential neighborhood chock full of children, for an extreme example?

And to be frank, and not trying to be insulting, your worldview on this matter edges into the realm of fantasy. While there are, of course, individuals who drive responsibly, people, in general, are manicas when they get behind the wheel.

Eating, texting, applying make-up, even reading the paper are things I have seen in my thirty years as a professional driver. Oo a few occasions I have even witnessed people dressing while driving! Not to mention people late for work who speed and blow off stop signs, and even stop lights as well.

Roads are owned by We the People, and as regulating commerce, and other factors, is quite Constitutionally legal, our various levels of government may certainly post speeds on those roads they are responsible for maintaining.

[Mini-Me]

Obey the state and we'll reward you with other peoples money.

If this thread is a competition, I think you may have just won. :D

[AxisMundi]

Amen. Its not that I think redlight cameras are a gross abuse of government power. Its that I think they open up the potential for even more aggresive measures in the future. That and decisions arent being made at the local level.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

How aren't redlight cameras not made at the local elvel? Or did I miss something there?

I don't like them simply becasue they are generally privately owned and operated. The company reserves the right to time the lights as well. From what I understand, accident rates go up as said companies tweek the redlights to keep their cut of the revenue when people figure out where they are and try to aviod them.

They also tend to catch people making absolutely legal right-on-red turns.

Any imagined future measures aside, they are a bad idea NOW no matter how you look at them.

[dejavu22]

If every time you sped past a camera it took your picture and sent you a ticket and every time you were safe past a camera it took your picture and recorded it, wouldn't that be de facto tracking of all citizens if there were enough of them around the city.

[torchbearer]

oh, THE lottery.
http://www.csebastian.com/book/lott1.jpg

[AxisMundi]

If every time you sped past a camera it took your picture and sent you a ticket and every time you were safe past a camera it took your picture and recorded it, wouldn't that be de facto tracking of all citizens if there were enough of them around the city.

Good point. That could indeed be a possible use of the information gathered.

[Mini-Me]

If every time you sped past a camera it took your picture and sent you a ticket and every time you were safe past a camera it took your picture and recorded it, wouldn't that be de facto tracking of all citizens if there were enough of them around the city.

Yes. The information probably isn't collated and organized well enough for that yet, but that's only a matter of time, as with all things Big Brother.

[aGameOfThrones]

Unfortunately there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting victimless crimes either.


Actually, these are Not "Crimes("Traffic infractions are not a crime." people v. battle, 50 Cal. APP. 3, step ,1 super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.)" but are administrative offenses, a crime must have a victim and the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, nor be deprived of property, without due process of law.

[Rael]

Actually, these are Not "Crimes("Traffic infractions are not a crime." people v. battle, 50 Cal. APP. 3, step ,1 super, 123 Cal. Rptr. 636, 639.)" but are administrative offenses, a crime must have a victim and the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, nor be deprived of property, without due process of law.

Ok, an officer can detain you, you can be fined, and go to jail if you don't pay the fine, but it's not a "crime" according to one state appellate court.

[malkusm]

Actually, you look like you have a point. I may have forgotten about the state part. Just to make sure that this is correct, is it so that, although the Federal Government cannot make any law that infringes upon the rights of others, but state governments can because they hold the power to do so, meaning that they are not limited by the constitution? So are you saying that the federal government has no say in traffic laws whatsoever, but state laws do?

It depends on the state constitution, but I assume that most contain some sort of provision by which to "regulate" commerce, travel, or something of the sort. I don't have time to look into it at the moment, but my point was more to the federal Constitution.

Actually, if you read about the early history of the country, the state governments were not laissez-faire libertarian states - they were very actively involved in the affairs of their citizens through tax collection, public works, and various provisions. Tocqueville dedicates an entire chapter to this in "Democracy in America." Regulation of speed limits within the state would be a simple modern-day extension of these involvements.

Again, not saying that I'm a fan of speed limits, but I don't think there's any basis for saying that they are a usurpation of historical state power (which was the basis of "unjust" law to the colonists at the time of the Revolution), and certainly are not unconstitutional at the federal level.

[AxisMundi]

It depends on the state constitution, but I assume that most contain some sort of provision by which to "regulate" commerce, travel, or something of the sort. I don't have time to look into it at the moment, but my point was more to the federal Constitution.

Actually, if you read about the early history of the country, the state governments were not laissez-faire libertarian states - they were very actively involved in the affairs of their citizens through tax collection, public works, and various provisions. Tocqueville dedicates an entire chapter to this in "Democracy in America." Regulation of speed limits within the state would be a simple modern-day extension of these involvements.

Again, not saying that I'm a fan of speed limits, but I don't think there's any basis for saying that they are a usurpation of historical state power (which was the basis of "unjust" law to the colonists at the time of the Revolution), and certainly are not unconstitutional at the federal level.

Very well put.

Also of note, IMHO, is that speed limits, stop signs, traffic laws, and traffic lights all came about as a result of problems that developed as a result of property damage, bodily injuries, and deaths, especially as transportation technology improved and the automobile became commonplace.