[WarOnPrivacy]

It can be but usually isn't.

The value of a local, penalty-backed law is in it's ability to guide bulk behavior. These laws imply a bargain we make with our governments, that enforcement will be limited to the stated objective.

Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

[baud147258]

Maybe my own opinion is coloured by the fact that I live in France, where speeding cameras are very common and seem effective in reducing speeding, but fining every speeder with automatic cameras seems a better solution than citing speeders at random

[jokethrowaway]

I hated speeding cameras with a passion in Italy. The concept is not bad but the ways limit are set is just plain ridiculous and an obvious plot to get people to pay the tolls for the highway (owned by Allianz as of now). The slower roads are perfectly fine and mostly deserted but you have stupidly low limits and the chance of getting a high bill which can be quite stressful.

I understand why people opt for the highways and paying a small amount now vs a bigger unexpected bill later on.

Another example of government policies and taxpayers money aiding private companies the government sold something to (they used to be public).

[petre]

The gilets jaunes felt quite differently about the speed cameras.

What I found really effective were traffic lights with speed meters that would turn red for five seconds if you were over the limit. No cameras, no fines, no police.

[powersnail]

> Reducing traffic speeds by citing a few speeders - this upholds that bargain. Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

I don't know. I feel that the citing every speeder is overall better than selectively catching a few speeders. First, it's fairer, leaving less space for selective enforcement based on arbitrary criterion. Second, based on my experience on US highway, the latter isn't very effective. While I usually cruise at speed limit, vehicles rush past me at 80~90 mph every day.

I certainly don't agree with the idea that police should give fines as much as possible to make profits. But it's equally wrong to deliberately reduce the amount of enforcement, because less enforcement leads to less profit.

In my opinion, enforcement is enforcement; the profit-making problem shouldn't even be a consideration when we decide how enforcement is carried out. It should be dealt with separately.

[thrashh]

I think a big part of the population believes 80-90mph is perfectly fine (of which I am a member) so everything is kind of working as intended. I don’t want the speed limit increased, and I don’t want the law to be religiously enforced. To me, we are in the perfect balance.

However, my world view is that all rules should be written to be broken in the right hands, with just enough pressure for someone who shouldn’t be breaking the rule to be discouraged from doing so. Nothing is perfect in life anyway, and you can never truly capture a complex world, so I think you might as well consider it in rulemaking.

That said, it does open the world to profiling, but that will already happen regardless. Racists will always find a way to be racist.

[sooheon]

> Citing every possible speeder while those fines fatten the police budget is a gross perversion.

Tying budget to citations is a perversion. Applying the law equally to everyone is just. You're conflating two issues.

[jakelazaroff]

Consider that "laws enforced selectively based on feelings" often describes racial profiling.