> The next thing I look to see happen is automated speeding tickets. There's no reason radars shouldn't be set up in conjuction with license plate readers, or actually just pulling speed data from cars with in-car transmission ability and tickets being auto-generated to constituents.
This seems like a Catch-22, though. Any state that actually enforced speeding laws systematically would wind up ticketing (almost) all drivers, (almost) all the time, and the selective nature of current enforcement of speeding limits would become so glaringly apparent that (one hopes) the problems with it couldn't be ignored.
Especially in a state like Texas, where "no regulation" is a religious mantra, it's hard to imagine that the result would be anything but raising the speed limits on the road to reflect actual driving conditions—which, I'd argue, is a good thing. (I don't know anything about the reason, but I do know that, on a stretch of I-35 that I have driven regularly for a few years, the speed limit has increased; and the trend statewide seems to be towards higher limits, with much of I-10 having a speed limit of 80 mph—beyond which I, as a Prius driver, wouldn't go significantly even if I were legally allowed to do so.)
I've heard the argument before, not sure if it was backed with any real data, that perfect enforcement leads to wiping out tickets as a source of revenue, because people start actually obeying the law.
In some cases it actually makes things more dangerous, like red-light cameras appear to cause accidents, because people afraid of tickets start slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow, and get rear ended.
Also I don't think that kind of meta-analysis lasts some rounds of conditioning.
Right now the "meta" is to not slam on your brakes at a yellow turning red because the person behind you might be expecting you to go through it. But if the expectation changes -- which could very well be caused by no one wanting to receive automated tickets any more, the person behind will most likely stop expecting you to go through it, as they're very aware of the risk of getting auto-ticketed too.
It's a bit more subtle than that: they tend to decrease the incidence of side impact collisions (which have a high injury potential), and increase the incidence of rear impact collisions (which have a somewhat lower, but non-zero injury potential). Overall results vary depending on your definition of success (less total collisions? less injuries? less side impact collisions?) and the characteristics of the intersection (approach speed, sight lines, etc).
Yeah I think this is the kind of thing that would actually happen -- people would have to actually confront what speed limits were/should be more practically.
My other comment was a little more pessimistic (as the probability that people don't get outraged enough to set practical limits is non-zero) -- but it would be nice if people took more of a critical/practical view towards the current speed limits, and whether they reflect the abilities of modern cars (and their own tolerances for receiving tickets).
This seems like a Catch-22, though. Any state that actually enforced speeding laws systematically would wind up ticketing (almost) all drivers, (almost) all the time, and the selective nature of current enforcement of speeding limits would become so glaringly apparent that (one hopes) the problems with it couldn't be ignored.
Especially in a state like Texas, where "no regulation" is a religious mantra, it's hard to imagine that the result would be anything but raising the speed limits on the road to reflect actual driving conditions—which, I'd argue, is a good thing. (I don't know anything about the reason, but I do know that, on a stretch of I-35 that I have driven regularly for a few years, the speed limit has increased; and the trend statewide seems to be towards higher limits, with much of I-10 having a speed limit of 80 mph—beyond which I, as a Prius driver, wouldn't go significantly even if I were legally allowed to do so.)