Roundabouts sometimes cause problems where problems didn't exist but I assume you knew that already.
How is raising the speed limits a money grab?
235 speed cameras Back On Monday
- Thread starter dmclone
- Start date
Roundabouts sometimes cause problems where problems didn't exist but I assume you knew that already.
How is raising the speed limits a money grab?
Here's how the process will go, and that proves this is just a money grab. They set a rather large 11 mph limit over the speed limit and claim safety. This nets them a nice amount of money each year. A couple things will happen with time, people will adjust and they will write fewer tickets over the years but the City will always need to increase the revenue stream (or the City just starts to go broke and need MOAR). So the response will be to decrease that cushion that they were so generous with to start and/or change the speed limits to the same effect. As it really gets bad they will then give no cushion and just start sending tickets out to random "violators" well within reasonable tolerances.
I'm sure this is opening a can of worm's, but what problems do you think roundabouts create? I guess I can think of some minor things, but in my mind they are more than offset by the benefits.
It seems that you need two types of roads. One high speed, low volume, limited access. Another lower speed, high volume, multiple access (but not every block).
So, what do we do with Duff Ave. in Ames? Make it narrow and slow (like Main St)? Or make fewer access points (like the strip in Ankeny)? Or live with it as it isn't really that bad?
Is there a big city that does what the video calls for? Chicago has interstate highways, major arterials (which sometimes go faster through town if you know how to use them), and narrower diagonal streets (like LIncoln Ave. with horrible 5-point stoplights).
Is there a consequence to not paying these tickets? I got one a few years ago and seem to recall wording that made me think they were saying that it was unenforceable, but I didn't want to take the chance, so I paid it.
I agree that they overall are good. I just think that sometimes they are in place to slow down traffic, where there are other options available. There is also the problem with at least 1/2 the population not knowing how to use them, when to yield, etc.
Not a fan. I question whether or not it makes things any safer, but it most definitely creates a bottleneck on 235 from 63rd through 42nd.
I know i remember reading that they'll go after your tax refund for the money if you don't pay.
Cedar Falls is putting them all over the place now. It shouldn't be difficult, but people still can't figure out when to yield and when not to. Had a friend get T-boned because someone just drive right through without yielding. And then there's the people who can't seem to stay in their lane when going through them (usually the giant SUVs)
Name one place where a roundabout held up traffic worse than a lit intersection or 4 way stop. They only cause issues because people don't read things like signs and see where they are going. The next time you're at a light in traffic, count how long you're stopped and then see how long you're stopped at a roundabout. They've saved millions of gallons in fuel.
Per the money grab: the faster you go, the worse your gas mileage gets (10-20% from 55-75 MPH), and more often you have to pay for fuel. Much of that money goes to things like taxes and oil refineries, etc., and some to the actual gas station that you stopped at. So great for government and oil companies...winning?
Add in that the faster you go, the more you have to slow down, use your brakes, wear and tear on other parts including your tires, and it's more often you have to spend money on those kinds of things. So passively good for mechanics too.
But I assume you knew all that already.
Their advisory speeds are usually 15 in town I think...then everyone goes 20-25 which is too fast for the size/angle. They oughta just make the advisory speed 10 so people only 15 and at least stay reasonable.
My favorites are the ones who check their phone and smoke at the same time on the approach, then ***** at the people that are simply yielding for those other cars to the left. It's really amazing how many people actually are allowed to drive.
So every roundabout replaces a stop sign or 4 way stop? Interesting. At least six have been added in Johnston in the last few years and not one replaced a light or stop sign. I would rather see a roundabout than a stop sign/light but that's not the only reason they are used but I assume you know that. Maybe lights were coming for those areas and in those areas they probably make sense.
As far as the speed limits, those are the maximum limits. You can still drive 55mph and stick it to the oil companies. Also, I'm not aware of a lot of places raising the speed limits by 20mph. It's usually 5-10mph max.
By the way, when I'm at a stoplight my motor turns off. But that probably wears my battery more, which funds those evil battery makers.
Last edited:
First off before I rant some more on this let me preface this by saying I have never received a ticket from these cameras so my hatred for them is not because of that. I actually have not had any traffic tickets since a speeding ticket back in 2003 where I got clocked going 70 on I235 right where the speed limit changes from 65 to 55 coming from the north. Not mad about that one, I was right in the process of turning off the cruise control for the speed limit change when I was too late to notice a cop car in the median waiting to catch someone just like me that hadn't slowed down yet. I typically will not go more than about 7-8mph over the speed limit because usually 10 or more is what gets you pulled over.
Anyways, the whole reason behind these cameras are not for safety it's all about generating revenue. If they didn't generate revenue they likely would never even be installed in the first place even if they were just breaking even on the costs to operate them. Notice how they only released data on the number of speeding violations when the cameras were on or off but not anything about an increase in accidents during that time they were off. Occasionally you'll see a story done on these cameras and the data on the number of accidents before and after they were installed don't justify the so called safety purposes these cities use to defend installing them. The City of Clive removed all their red light cameras along Hickman because of this, they were generating nearly $750,000 a year on those cameras but the data showed very minimal gains in the decrease of accidents due to running a red light. The funny thing though was after the city council decided to turn them off they wound up having to turn them back on again for a bit before removing them because they had made their budget based on what those cameras brought in and acknowledged they needed that revenue until they could approve the budget for the next year that did not include the money from those cameras.
Bottom line, it is lazy law enforcement and the cities that use these cameras can use the safety reasons all they want but in most cases the safety gains made by having these cameras are little to none while financial gains are significant. They will never admit publicly those cameras are an easy source of revenue though because they have to use the safety reasons to justify having them.
If that is true that is even worse, I find it hard to believe they would take your word for it.
1 mph over is ridiculous the margin of error in the speed gun is probably greater than that
I think you have to sign an affidavit. I guess that person could fight your claim and I don't know how that would work. Ultimately, I guess if you're found be making false statements you're probably going to be in more trouble than just paying the fine.
I'd imagine this is more common for situations like rental cars.
If you take it further like scales in the highway you could probably get rid of the d.o.t. and quite a few state troopers.
That's kind of a weird way to look at it to me. I would think accidents at almost all speeds are dangerous. You should have made the height of the cliff variable like the speed of the car.
Hey kids look, Big Ben, Parliament.
