Hacker News Reader

Comment by gambiting | Hacker News Reader

I have very mixed feelings about this. I have been caught by a money-making camera myself(middle of a forest in rural Poland, far away from any houses, and yet it was still a "built-up" area with speed limit of 50km/h, because technically there wasn't a sign ending it after leaving the last town few km back), but on the other hand, there's so many people speeding in cities, frequently doing 100km/h or above on very busy streets, that I am all for building more speed cameras in those places.

And then:

" solely a revenue-generating measure which takes money from the poor."

Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.

View on HN

> Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true. I think the opposite was proven recently, no? That rich people with expensive cars are more likely to disobey traffic laws.

This is a strange interpretation of the statement. I would've assumed that the point being made is similar to that about the tax on cigarettes - the cost of a penalty charge is less significant to a rich person.

yes, it's a mixed bag.

In some places the cameras are signaled up to 500m before, and are very visible with yellow reflective stripes. There is often one at the entrance of towns to force drivers to adapt their speeds, and it works.

Then some are clearly placed with malice, it really depends.

> Unless someone can prove a connection that someone poor is more likely to speed, then I don't see how that's true.

I think an issue would be that poor people will drive more. Middle class population will tend to be more urban and rely on public transportation for day to day use, even if they still own a car and may do a few trips during the week.

People in remote areas will be more at the extreme: crazy rich or pretty poor, and the poor in these area will have to drive everywhere to get almost anything, thus being more subject to speed traps. (anecdotaly almost everyone speeds way over the limit, some big highway feel like the autobahn sometimes)

> anecdotaly almost everyone speeds way over the limit, some big highway feel like the autobahn sometimes

Yes! I don't understand why the government doesn't accept the reality and doesn't (try to) raise the speed limit. Now everyone is speeding and when they see something remotely alike an undercover police car they brake hard, creating very dangerous situations for all people around; you could argue "it's their fault, they're speeding" - yes, but why keep the limit low?

I guess it's specifically because the police know that people will speed, but also that most people are speeding only a bit(10-20%). So instead of setting the limit at 100km/h, they set the limit to 80km/h knowing that most people will do 100km/h anyway. If they set the limit to 100km/h at least some people would be doing 120km/h.

That would make sense in the past, but now there are speed radars everywhere. Isn't now the time to change the approach?

Let's assume poor and rich are equally likely to speed (except the rich who only move in limos or helis). Flat fees still hurt the poor more, because they cut into living expenses. To be truly egalitarian, these fees should be a % of income and a % of wealth.

Which would be fair, because the goal of these things is to avoid misbehaviour with potentially deadly consequences. There is no reason someone poor should pay 40% of their monthly paycheck while someone rich pays with <1% of their montly paycheck.

This is why in a lot of european nations on top of the fines you have a point-based system – if you have three points you get your driving license revoked and you will have it revoked for some time and then you have to do some driving tests again.

This actually works quite well in preventing bad behaviour (assuming you have a non corrupt police), but one could argue that it is a much, much worse punishment to the poor again (it can potentially destroy them economically, including the loss of income source etc).

That is why there is also (in France at least) a system of points on the driving license. Everybody has the same count (12) at the beginning and will lose an equal amount in case of an infraction. If you lose all of them your license is suspended.

Given what you said is true, wouldn't it make sense to black out just the malicious ones? Unless this says that all the ones vandalized (60% of speed cameras) are actually for the sole purpose of money making?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com