Bring Back Automated Speed Enforcement

I don't want to change the topic or focus of this discussion but in my original post I named 4 segments of road that I believe are underspeed aka the Posted Limit is below what is Reasonable. Of the 2 I named, 2 of them are true Highways: Golden Ears Way & Highway 17 Connector. Both are posted with 80KM/H Speed Signs dipping in one particular area to as low as 50KM/H. No other true Highway in the Lower Mainland is posted that low that I am aware of. Highway 91 is posted at 90KM/H & it is over 20 Years Old. The latter are the newest most up to date, most recently constructed which means they should be some of the safest Highways we have, also they are away from Residential & School Zones primarily going through Industrial Areas. Being a very reasonable person the only reason I can come up with that these are underspeed by atleast 10>20KPH is to subsidize the construction costs, because guess what, Radar Traps are very common on both...humm I wonder why.

If tomorrow Automated Speed Enforcement was put in place on these 2 Highways everyone from the Trucker to the VW Mini driver would be taken advantage of. If the limit was reasonable at 100KM/H>110KM/H or even 80KM/H for Trucks in the Right Lane only & 100KM/H for Cars which is common in the USA then I would be more supportive of this Automated Speed Enforcement idea.

1. It's always about the money.  No matter what the authorities claim, they can never resist the chance to scoop more dollars in from the peons, uh, general public.  When photo radar was introduced, 'they' promised that it would only be used in high-crash locations where speeding was particularly dangerous; that didn't happen; the cops running the vans deliberately and intentionally selected areas where the highest number of speeders could be found; typically wide open straight roads with few hazards and excellent forward vision.
2. It's always about the money.  Much as I favour the concept of Red Light cameras; indeed I would like to see them installed at every Traffic Light Controlled interesection (a majority of collisions happen at intersections, and are not directly speed-related); but in many jurisdictions the authorities installing these devices have deliberately shortened the duration of the amber light, in order to increase the chance of incriminating drivers.  Democracy in action ... or something.
3. It shouldn't just be about the money.  It should be about safety.  It should be about getting the bad drivers off the road.  What's the difference between a cop pulling someone over and issuing a ticket, as compared to a robotic camera?  The cop tickets the driver.  The camera tickets the car.  Got lotsa money?  Then with automated traffic enforcement, you and your family members who drive your car can drive like morons, because there is no direct consequence - i.e. penalty points - to the miscreant behind the wheel.  Where's the democracy in that?
4. It doesn't target the root cause of collisions!  Fact is, the most common two-vehicle collision is the rear-ender.  The car behind doesn't have sufficient room from the car ahead.  So-called accidents happen when drivers run out of space and time - at any speed.  If you doubt me, go visit some wrecking yards, walk up and down the rows of wrecked vehicles, and look at where the collision damage has occurred.  No wonder ICBC have lots of lawyers, trying to disallow whiplash claims; it's because there are lots of victims of whiplash - caused by drivers following too close.  At any speed.  (What's really ironic is that automated enforcement could easily be used to target this issue; if a vehicle is captured within a second of the one ahead, then again 100 meters later, then again 100 meters after that, then that vehicle is demonstrably following that other vehicle too closely, and a ticket should be issued; as with photo radar, the vehicle owner would be free to nominate the driver, if they wanted to avoid having to pay a penalty for someone else's actions when driving their vehicle.)
5. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.  We have seen tremendous efforts by law enforcement officers in BC over the last four decades, and the three main issues they have addressed have been, in no particular order, Speeding, Seatbelts, Impairment.  And you know what?  This concerted effort on the part of the cops has been effective.  Seatbelt compliance in BC is pretty much as high as you'll find anywhere in the world.  Impaired driving is at an all-time low.  Speeding ... well there just hasn't been the same success; what has actually occurred is that drivers still speed, only more carefully, and travel in these dangerous packs and clusters; far too close together, generally about 10 km/h over the limit.  So inevitably when things go wrong, being already low on visibility they then run out of space, and haven't the time to react.  Multiple rear-ender crashes that then get blamed on ... speeding!  When in fact, they were all following too close, due to overzealous enforcement of speed limits.
6. You know what really irritates me?  Our whole system of road governance has been allowed to disintegrate, and this is the fault of both the government and the police.  When ICBC were given the authority to take on Driver Licensing in BC, they probably (I'm guessing here) expected to be able to enjoy the revenue from traffic tickets.  Uh uh.  No, that just got channeled into general revenue.  So they got all of the responsibility, and none of the gravy, other than sufficient reimbursement to run the operation; ICBC does not profit from licensing.  What about the police forces?  Well after years of attempting to ticket the real miscreants out there, and with increasing demands on their services, they pretty much decided that they wouldn't attend accidents any more unless alcohol and/or death/serious injury were involved, and after wasting countless hours in courtrooms defending legitimate tickets against defendants who were there simply because they 'hoped the cop wouldn't show up', they almost completely gave up on the penalty point system and decided that traffic violations, and consequences, were an issue that ICBC would resolve with higher insurance penalties against vehicle owners.  And why does this really irritate me?  Because in this current age, virtually every cop car has a camera - or six - running.  Gone are the days when traffic court might be reduced to 'he said - she said'.  A cop in court can pop a DVD in the player for all to see whether the driver really did blow the light, or fail to signal, or follow too close, or cut in, or - whatever.  So it would be a piece of cake for them to cruise in traffic and nab drivers for breaking fundamental vehicle laws, laws that result in collisions and at minimum increase road rage.  So why don't they do this?  Because they don't have the motivation.  The courts are choked, and when the tickets do stick, the revenues are swallowed up by our so-called government.  What a farce it has all become; there is a smaller chance than ever these days that the drivers who are the problem are the ones who will get the fines, and the penalty points, and the license suspensions and prohibitions.  And that costs us all.

I drove the A9 in Scotland two weeks ago which has extensive ASCs. Traffic seemed to be flowing excellently and I wasn’t tailgated by speed maniacs who thought they owned the road.

There does seem to be one deficiency with ASCs. Since they require a frontal view of number plates, they cannot detect motorcycle speeders.

One major potential benefit that doesn’t seem to get a mention is that it could free up police resources to deal with other dangerous driving such as driving too close and dangerous lane changes.

Here are a few snippets from the web on the UK experience with ASCs:

“The first permanent average speed camera system in Scotland was installed on a 32 mile stretch of the A77 in July 2005 in a pilot project. Since the A77 system was installed, there has been a 46% reduction in the number of people being killed and a 35% reduction in the number of people being seriously injured. Analysis has indicated a considerable speed reduction throughout the route and very few speeding offenders.

An average speed system was also used for the first time as part of road works in Scotland on the M74 Raith Interchange scheme from February until June 2006. The use of such systems at road works is part of an overall design to mitigate the risks to road workers who are exposed to passing traffic on high speed roads.

As well as reducing risks to road workers it has also been instrumental in minimising congestion and reducing incident occurrence within the road works area. This strategy continues to be used at major road works schemes; most recently on the M80 Stepps to Haggs improvement scheme.”

“The A9 Safety Group, which involves Transport Scotland, police and road maintenance companies, said overall speeding was down from about one in three drivers to one in 20.

It added that the cameras - which have been introduced at 27 locations between Dunblane and Inverness - had detected 298 vehicles exceeding the speed limit over the first three months.

Police Scotland said 2,493 offences had been recorded over the same period the previous year.

The safety group said excessive speeding - where drivers were traced travelling at more than 10mph above the speed limit - had fallen by 97%.

An associated pilot scheme allowing lorries to go at 50mph, which is 10mph faster than the national limit, has helped to reduce journey times, it added.

Average journey times between Perth and Inverness have increased by up to 14 minutes, according to the new report.”

I think this whole discussion is about a solution looking for a problem.  We all have our own perception about whether there too many people going too fast or too slow in the left lane, but what are the facts?  I can't speak to other areas, but where I live, (south end of the Island) the actual numbers say something different than what people are saying here.  A very small minority of drivers travel at less than the maximum speed limit, average is about 1-2%.  80% are travelling between the maximum and 10 km/h over the limit, and the other 18-19% are going even faster.  In my opinion it seems obvious the dangerous conditions are being created by the speeders not the very rare slow driver.

85th percentile is a generally agreed term among engineers in many jurisdictions in the world. It is a method described in the US DOT engineering manuals for the setting of the speed limits.



The lemming analogy is flawed, since lemmings are lemming and people are people, you would not expect a lemming to drive, while people are getting licensed to drive on a daily basis. Lemmings do not form societies, conduct revolutions and institute laws, rules and regulations, because they are lemmings - and its simply not what lemmings do.



Receiving a license carries certain merits with it, in particular the State's acknowledgment that the licensee has been trained, tested and is deemed to be fit to drive. Lemmings on the other hand do what lemmings do with-out a license; and it can further be said that the State does not deem lemmings to have been trained, tested and qualified to do what the lemmings do.



I hope this asinine explanation highlights the flaw of your analogy.



Rules of the society are in support of the society, for the conduct of the reasonable and prudent day to day activities of the society, and on the off chance that a rule, that does not represent the above simple concept, comes into existence - it will inevitably cause friction to the society and its un-threatened/voluntary compliance rate will directly speak to its validity.