[leereeves]

In response to aggressive use of traffic cameras, people in a number of cities and states have passed propositions banning their use.

A switch to (1) might have similar effects, motivating the people to force a switch to (2).

[JoeAltmaier]

Any use of traffic cameras is seen as 'aggressive'. It inevitably results in hundreds of tickets that otherwise wouldn't be written, affecting hundreds of citizens in a way they see as intrusive and 'unfair'. For better or worse.

[HillaryBriss]

not disagreeing with the first part of your statement, but, for the second part, a reasonable remedy would be to simply lower the cost of each violation.

e.g. if almost everyone got speeding tickets, but they only cost $15 and didn't involve any points against the driver's record or insurance premium hikes, people would simply pay up and probably speed less often. complaints about the injustice of speeding tickets would probably remain at current levels.

[JoeAltmaier]

Tragically, reasonable fees for bad behavior encourage the opposite behavior: all guilt evaporates and folks feel entitled to the behavior, after all they can pay for it. Famous studies of charging parent who were late picking up children from school, everybody started doing it and gladly paying.

[HillaryBriss]

Ok, but, could it be that the fee charged to parents was simply too low?

Can't we just view "the right to speed" as a service offered by the government and then apply the usual price and demand logic to it?

[JoeAltmaier]

I've had the same idea - a geometrically increasing 'fee' for road use depending on speed. Kind of like toll roads, but maybe even most roads. If you want to spend the money (and have the money, thus likely the deep pockets to compensate for damage) then go ahead!

[dsfyu404ed]

But that wouldn't satisfy the "if you speed you're Literally Hitler (TM) crowd" who want punishment for minor traffic infractions to be sized for deterrence rather than the actual harm to society.