# Speeding - deterrence vs revenue **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 19, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118 "2015-02-19T19:28:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/21 "2015-02-20T23:55:15Z")
Red light cameras are primarily about revenue generation rather than safety. Increasing the duration of yellow lights results in much fewer accidents at intersections than having cameras. From[here:](http://blog.esurance.com/are-red-light-cameras-actually-causing-accidents/#.VOfHfvnF98E) > [@](#): > > the North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University prepared a study (opens PDF) for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Motivated by “criticism of the simplistic methods and small data sets used in many studies of red-light cameras,” the researchers looked at 303 intersections over a 57-month period. > > Their findings? “The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.” > > … > > In fact, in Roswell, Georgia, traffic cameras generated record revenues of $835,253 in 2008. > > That’s nearly a million dollars the city stands to lose if they remove their cameras. > > Taking the monetary argument a step further, the National Motorists Association has gone so far as to point the finger at corporate interests. According to the Association, Lockheed Martin (a major manufacturer of red light cameras) rakes in a quarter of the ticket cost ($70 of the $271 total) for each infraction in California. > > Eric Skrum, Communications Director for the National Motorists Association, also notes that Lockheed Martin “has included clauses in their contracts that prohibit city engineers from applying engineering practices that improve compliance and reduce accidents.” So if the purpose of installing red-light cameras is to make the world a safer place, why prohibit other potentially effective countermeasures? To the OP: it’s not surprising that this is the attitude of law enforcement. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/22 "2015-02-21T03:10:46Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which is irrelevant to your previous claim - being ticketed for travelling in the passing lane is not the same thing as being ticketed for obeying the speed limit. > > And yet, you cite an article in which a specific person is named. Surely there must be news stories about Californians complaining to the media that they were ticketed for obeying the speed limit? There is no “passing lane” in CA. The law here is “If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic mov ing in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of this section.” aka “slower traffic keep right” > **[Laws Publications - Government](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/404-BClaws.html)** > > Find information on British Columbia's legal system, assistance programs and services, family justice help and resolving disputes outside of courts. It’s important to note that “slower” means “less than the normal speed of traffic”, thus if the normal speed of traffic in the left lane is higher than the speed limit, and you are only going the speed limit, you can be ticketed for impeding traffic, despite the fact you are going the speed limit. Generally of course you will get a warning (my friend with the new Prius got such a warning) but as with many traffic infractions, mouthing off or being rude will get you that ticket. Yes, that article is from another state, where \*such laws do not apply. \* ---
**Author:** ![pbbth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f9ae1b/32.png) [@pbbth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbbth)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/23 "2015-02-21T03:15:48Z")
Why can’t it be both like the late Earl Warren? ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/24 "2015-02-21T05:28:22Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > When I voiced this I was met with a bit of humor and sarcasm that this work may be predatory but that it allows then to drive chargers instead of crown Vic’s!? :smack: > > So am I on an island here? 😕 We’ve had parts of this conversation before, so I’ve related on SDMB my Dad’s experience in the late 40’s. He was busted for speeding going through a cutting, where the speed sign was placed at the top of the cliff, with the road down at the bottom. Clearly, speeding fines as revenue raising was a thing then, End-of-month quotas is another thing that has supporters and detractors. A relative spent some time talking to a small town cop who kept his annual averages up mostly by detecting out-of-towners at the start of hunting season. This helped him avoid making local enemies. My relative wasn’t judgmental: his most interesting cases every year were gun wounds caused by out-of-towners at the start of hunting season. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/25 "2015-02-21T06:04:50Z")
> [@chargerrich](#): > > So I was recently at social function with a number of officers when the subject of photo red lights and some “stealth” style patrol lights that are new to area arose. > > I was a little taken aback by the candid nature of the conversation, where the officers readily admitted that generating revenues by tricking soccer moms doing 4mph over the limit was just as much of their strategy as catching “real” speeders/dangerous drivers. > > The force (at least in my community) seems to care much more about revenue than any deterrence. > > To my way of thinking, there is value in the mere presence of an officer to deter violations and foster safe behaviors (and goodwill). While I believe that entrapment style tactics are great for actual crime and drug enforcement, the idea of a fleet of officers busting anyone going 56 in a 55 on the last day of the month seems counter intuitive to “protect and serve”. > > When I voiced this I was met with a bit of humor and sarcasm that this work may be predatory but that it allows then to drive chargers instead of crown Vic’s!? :smack: > > So am I on an island here? 😕 I can’t wait until self-driving cars put these guys on the unemployment line. I’m throwing a party. They’re not invited. And if you think the speed traps are some bullshit, do a little research on non-violent drug offenses like low-level possession, paraphenalia, etc… Also take a look at civil asset forfeiture. We might as well not even HAVE a 4th amendment anymore. Marijuana legalization hits these guys HARD, because the money that used to go directly to them will instead start going into the general fund. Total drug legalization would decimate their funding. Self-driving cars, on top of legalization, would get them firmly back under control, for the first time in a long time, if ever. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/26 "2015-02-21T12:16:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There is no “passing lane” in CA. The law here is “If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic mov ing in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of this section.” > aka “slower traffic keep right” So, in other words, you are _not_ being ticketed for obeying the speed limit, you’re being ticketed for failing to keep right (I.e. travelling in the passing lane). It’s good to see that we agree on this. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/27 "2015-02-21T12:18:01Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > I can’t wait until self-driving cars put these guys on the unemployment line. I’m throwing a party. They’re not invited. Yeah, who needs police or laws or social peace anyway? Things were much better when everyone just took the law into their own hands. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/28 "2015-02-21T14:04:39Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Yeah, who needs police or laws or social peace anyway? Things were much better when everyone just took the law into their own hands. I think you miss the point. Not only are these clowns enforcing traffic laws for the sake of enriching themselves and their department, and not for the purpose of public safety, but they’re likely spending time pulling over soccer-mom piloted minivans going 4mph over the line for those reasons, rather than investigating and deterring actual, real, serious crimes. That IS a travesty; maybe in smaller towns there aren’t enough real crimes to go around, so the cops can sit around effectively shaking people down for money, but in most big cities, I’d guarantee that every minute giving someone a dubious traffic ticket is time not spent investigating or deterring a serious crime, or apprehending a serious criminal. ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/29 "2015-02-21T14:24:26Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > But if all you’re talking about a guy with a radar hiding behind a billboard…yay him. I don’t care if it’s for deterrence or for revenue: it pulls at least a few reeking jerks off the street for ten minutes. **Speeding is goddamn dangerous, and I don’t even care if I’m surrendering to the cave-man impulse to punish – speeders ought to be punished.** That seems kind of naive. Exceeding the posted speed limit isn’t inherently dangerous, as most of the policies determining it have little to do with safety. When the US dropped the limit on interstates from 75 to 55 it had little to do with road safety. Staying at that limit for 30 years after the fuel shortage that precipitated the drop had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. The raising of limits now has nothing to do safety either - we’ve just reached a point where it’s cheaper to field fewer troopers than write a lot if tickets. ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/30 "2015-02-21T16:33:13Z")
If anyone seriously thinks revenue from speeding tickets goes directly into enriching cops wallets or goes into some police party fund you really need to re-educate yourself to where the money actually goes. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/31 "2015-02-21T16:48:42Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think you miss the point. Not only are these clowns enforcing traffic laws for the sake of enriching themselves and their department, and not for the purpose of public safety, but they’re likely spending time pulling over soccer-mom piloted minivans going 4mph over the line for those reasons, rather than investigating and deterring actual, real, serious crimes. If you don’t want to be pulled over for going 4 mph over the line, then **don’t go 4 mph over the line.** It’s as simple as that. All the rest of this about “They’re just trying to boost revenue” or “my second cousin’s barber got ticketed for not speeding” are just excuses people come up with to justify their inability to control their speed on the road or their belief that they _really_ need to get where they’re going 15 seconds faster. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/32 "2015-02-21T17:03:55Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > If anyone seriously thinks revenue from speeding tickets goes directly into enriching cops wallets or goes into some police party fund you really need to re-educate yourself to where the money actually goes. Nobody’s claiming that; some departments keep a percentage of ticket revenue, therefore giving them an incentive to issue more tickets in order to get themselves better toys and equipment. In that situation, the cops have a reason to go after the “easy” tickets- why try and set up to catch some rice-burner driving like a maniac, or street racers when you can ticket 3x as many soccer-moms who aren’t driving erratically or maniacally, but who are technically breaking the law by going 4 over the limit? It’s a sort of perverse incentive away from enforcing the law in a way that is most effective, and toward enforcing it in a way that gets the most revenue, whether or not it is actually useful in terms of public safety, order or anything else. Nobody’s denying that someone going 4 mph over the limit isn’t breaking the law, but what we are saying is that considering the conditions, and other stuff, it may not necessarily be dangerous or a problem in any way whatsoever. And when there are both other more serious crimes and worse drivers out there, it’s particularly infuriating to think that cops are spending their effort pulling over soccer moms for revenue purposes instead of actually you know, protecting the public and enforcing the public peace and all that stuff. It’s an example of them going after technical violations because they’re easy, instead of going after real criminals or dangerous drivers, because they’re hard and don’t net as much revenue. That’s what irritates a lot of us. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/33 "2015-02-21T17:10:06Z")
Choose your D&D response. Lawful Good: All law is a law is a law. Pay up. Chaotic Good: Some laws are more lawful and we should do what’s right. Neutral: Meh… that’s the way it is Chaotic Evil: Rebellion!! Anarchy!!! Mwahahah! Lawful Evil: All glory to the master’s totalitarian state! Apologies if there are any major mistakes. Haven’t played in a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/34 "2015-02-21T17:44:07Z")
> [@bump](#): > > It’s an example of them going after technical violations because they’re easy, instead of going after real criminals or dangerous drivers, because they’re hard and don’t net as much revenue. That’s what irritates a lot of us. In other words, you’re irritated because you got caught. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/35 "2015-02-21T18:57:50Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > I don’t have a problem with red light cameras. I do have some issue with the cameras when it comes to certain turns at certain intersections. Motorcycles don’t always trip the sensors so the general rule is “after 3 cycles, make your turn when you safely can”. A flesh and blood cop can see that I’ve waited, waited for a safe break in traffic, and judge that. The camera just shoots the still and some time later the ticket arrives. And just try to fight it in court - the time and evidence you need is 10 times the cost of the ticket. Which is one of the reasons those tickets are just fines and do not count against your “points” or insurance. Yes - we note the bad lights and complain and follow it up the food chain. But many of the ones I deal with regularly haven’t been fixed or addressed in over five years. If they used my fines to fix the _$&@_ things I could maybe live with it. But as it is its just extortion. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/36 "2015-02-22T01:52:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > In other words, you’re irritated because you got caught. I don’t speed, and I don’t get tickets. I think it’s a crock if cops go after jaywalkers/not-quite-stopped-right-on-red-drivers at the expense of catching more dangerous violators. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/37 "2015-02-22T02:46:35Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > I think it’s a crock if cops go after jaywalkers/not-quite-stopped-right-on-red-drivers at the expense of catching more dangerous violators. So are you saying that jaywalking and running red lights should be legal, or that it should be illegal but that people shouldn’t be punished for doing it? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/38 "2015-02-22T04:15:14Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So are you saying that jaywalking and running red lights should be legal, or that it should be illegal but that people shouldn’t be punished for doing it? No, that’s not what he or I is saying. What we’re saying is that the cops should prioritize more dangerous crimes and violations over penny-ante, chicken-shit stuff like jaywalking and running red lights. Which is more important? Deterring and/or nabbing people driving 85 mph on a 55 mph freeway in the rain in heavy traffic, or pulling someone for going 40 in a 35 over on a straight, flat road with very few cross-streets on a sunny dry spring day with no other traffic within 400 yards of him? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/39 "2015-02-22T04:18:19Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So, in other words, you are _not_ being ticketed for obeying the speed limit, you’re being ticketed for failing to keep right (I.e. travelling in the passing lane). The far left lane is \*\*NOT **the “passing lane” in CA, in fact CA doesnt really have them.** You can drive all day in that lane as long as you do not impede traffic. \*\* Thus you are ticketed for Impeding Traffic- even tho you may be going the posted speed limit. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2015, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118/40 "2015-02-22T04:41:16Z")
I had a cop tailgate me at 11 pm on Christmas Eve, on a night so dark I couldn’t see he was a cop. He was about 18 inches off my bumper, doing about 45 mph. I was concerned that it was a psychopath trying to get into a wreck with me, and then try to murder me, so I rolled through a stop sign. He then ticketed me for rolling through the stop sign. He broke the law and terrorized a citizen for the purpose of entrapment. He did this tailgating trick for years in my county. He retired last year, having wrecked more patrol cars than any trooper in North Carolina history. Eventually the state stopped paying to have his car repaired, they forced him to start paying for repairs. He never lost his job. He has his pension. This is unacceptable. People like him belong in jail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speeding-deterrence-vs-revenue/713118.md?page=3)