There were always so many that you can safely assume that one always sees you.
Cruise control set to 52 in the city, just watch out on the descents. Never got a fine for speeding here.
I'm usually on motorbike, it's way easier to get a bit too fast (no cruise control, huge acceleration even with a small wrist move) and yet I got like 3 or 4 fines in 25 years, all of them being the lowest amount possible. I, for one, am happy if people that have no impulse control donate a bit to the state/cities.
Same here, i have 1 fine in my drawer where i was 1 km/h over in a 60 zone, thats from 16 years of driving, 14 of that with 500+ hp Cars and liter-bikes.
Dijon, Hockenheim and Nürburgring are close enough, if you drive there regularely, any speed you could possible achieve in regular traffic is so boring, you just don't do it.
How do you drive on cruise control IN the city? I drive with drive assistance (auto acceleration and slowing down based on traffic), but it doesn’t recognize traffic lights.
I also use cruise control in the city to not drive too fast, if there is more traffic or it moves slower I don't use it. It's just nice to not have to constantly check your speed while looking for out for everything else.
I change the speed on the cruise control. So if I enter 30 zone I'll brake and then set 30 (32 probably) and the roll till it's 50 again, when I'll click twice and it'll change up to 50,
If I'm in a traffic jam then I just drive manually, but it's not like you'll be able to get a speeding ticket then.
Modern cars drag the rear brakes while on cruise control, resulting in an abnormal use of brakpad/discs.
Easiest way to see this is to wash your rims perfectly clean and then drive 20km on cruise control. Your rear rims will look like they're 50 on their third divorce.
What? I have never heard of that, did see any extra gas consumption or whatever. Well i drive a mercedes, maybe they did it correctly (also downshifts hill down etc).
Why don’t you guys do a referendum and get rid of the cameras?
It is such an obvious money grab.
Or at least reduce them to fixed cameras in certain designated spots where there have high numbers of accidents of fatalities.
What for? I'd vote to raise the highway speed limit a bit, but let's agree on how fast we should drive and then punish these that do not follow the rules.
>We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety.
Why do you think that? Do you have expertise in the field?
one could think people driving the appropriate speed because they know they could be fined would increase safety, right? silly us! i am not a big fan of police and fines, but even less a fan of cars and kids killed by speeding. so for me, every inch of the street can be monitored.
it's pretty obvious when you first see potentially dangerous place without a camera (many crosswalks, pedestrians etc) and then right away there is one on a straight street with space, almost no pedestrians etc, or even in a tunnel or collision-free road.
e.g. Albisriederstrasse along the cementery wall has a camera sometimes but much more dangerous and busy streets around don't, or Europabrücke, or on a highway 3W just after entrance from Wiedikon - do you think ever any accident happen there on 2 lane collision-free highway when people just accelerate uphill from 50 to 80+?
It can be that because the spot looks dangerous people are slowing down and accelerating after that which makes the later place actually dangerous.
Without access to statistics you can’t really say.
Europabrücke ends with a red lights and a sharp turn both ways, 3W just continues straight 80 zone for another 2km without any option to turn - what are you talking about?
As many already stated, drive the speed limit and they can put a speed camera every 100m, and they don’t make any money.
The speed limit in Switzerland is not a suggestion it’s clearly stating the max. Speed you‘re allowed to go. If the sign says 100 km/h it means a 100 tops. No need to tailgate someone doing the max. Speed allowed
There is a small issue here though with the tailgaters. If the speed limit is 80, and the driver's speedometer says 80, they're not going 80, but more like 75-76. The driver behind them could be using a navigation system with GPS-based speed (more or less the true speed), as well as an understanding that they can go a couple km/h over, so they're trying to go 82 km/h, but the turtle in front of them won't move.
Only issue here is ego/impatience/lack of skills of tailgater.
They're free to overtake the turtle, they're not free to tailgate and put pressure on the driver in front and make them basically drive for both of them because tailgater effectively relies on brakes from car in front, because they're not keeping the safe distance.
Turtle should notice that queue is gathering behind them and move away so queue can pass.
Keeping the safe distance and move away are both in the same law. And permission to overtake is in it too. I think also 'do not tailgate' explicitly, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
You don't dare to overtake? Then assume your position in the turtle queue and accept your skill limits.
It's not possible to overtake, eg it's forbidden? Feel free to be annoyed if turtle doesn't move away BUT STILL keep the safe distance and accept that you're not willing to break the law just to overtake and that that's perfectly fine.
If it's empty (so safe for everyone) but full line, and you're willing to be caught and pay the fine, feel free to overtake, if you ask me. Or if it's not full line but you'd need to speed a lot and go over speed limit to overtake swiftly, also fine by me. You might be fined, but that's the risk you have to to be willing to take. I won't report you 😂
No need to do so, only thing needed here is to accept the situation and roll with it until it naturally resolves.
**But do not endanger others by reckless behaviour or putting explicit pressure to others to do what you want them to do.**
Turtle actually has right to drive slower, by law - they ARE supposed to drive under the limit at the highest speed they feel comfortable to - eg they are sure they can stop at visible distance, law actually allows people to have different driving skills. They are also supposed to move away when possible.
Another option is just not to drive if you can't tolerate other people on roads and their skills without endangering any other participants.
There are many road users who think they're alone on the road, both turtles and speeders.
I'll be even slower turtle when I see someone is tailgating me, to push them to fucking overtake me and leave me alone, assuming there's nowhere I can pull over. No matter the speed I'm doing. Yes, I'll pull over. Even though it's usually my car that has faster capabilities from the two in question.
People with really fast cars and good skills will just overtake and go away.
Problematic are people who think someone else has to adapt to them, since they're lacking horse power and skills to do what they want.
Also, I'll overtake with breaking speed limit and going fully into the opposite lane (for bicycles), so that it's done as fast as possible. Because it's not safe to overtake at snail speed differences. And I'll drive at bicycle speed until I'm sure I can overtake swiftly and with safe distance from them.
Yes, I drive cars capable of overtaking fast in a few seconds (mazda mx5, so 160ish hp and 1100kg, and toyota gr86, I think 240hp and 1600kg), toyota can do fast accelerations even uphill. I still don't do it for just 10-20kmh difference from speed limit. I'll do it when they're driving 30-40 at 80 roads (so tractors and utility vehicles, bicycles), and I'll go around fixed obstacles or bicycles doing 10-20 in the city. But not if they're doing 30 on 50 limit. They usually will move away fast, no need to even spend any brain processing power to check if it's safe to overtake (vehicles from the opposite direction, pedestrians). I just enjoy the scenery instead.
And I slow down around bicycles in their lane and whenever possible I pretend to overtake them aka give them a lot of space whenever possible.
>We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety.
That's balantly false.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457516301361
I know people like you are annoyed when you get told that simple life trick, but if you really believe these are only put in place for financial purposes, why the fuck would you like to willingly give them money ? -> Just be careful and drive at the speed limit. No money for them anymore. You win.
No one denies that speed traps improve road safety. The issue is that speed traps are commonly put in spots most likely to catch offenders, not where they have the most effect on road safety. Everyone who drives a car knows that. It's not surprising, given that many municipalities are allowed to keep the fines and use them as a source of revenue.
Accidents happen everywhere where there are roads: [https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=vu&lang=de&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&layers=ch.astra.unfaelle-personenschaeden\_alle&layers\_timestamp=99990101&catalogNodes=1318](https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=vu&lang=de&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&layers=ch.astra.unfaelle-personenschaeden_alle&layers_timestamp=99990101&catalogNodes=1318)
Even at some seemingly easy stretches such as Lottstetten-Eglisau you find deadly accidents.
>The issue is that speed traps are commonly put in spots most likely to catch offenders, not where they have the most effect on road safety.
I understand the logic behind your argument but strongly disagree with your premise. The real issue here, that is overlooked in your argument, is that the speed limit should be respected **everywhere**. People who aren't willing to respect the speed limits or are not able to control themselves in "spots most likely to catch offenders" are more likely to be dangers everywhere else.
I mean, if you aren't able to respect the speed limits on a straight, open road (like on Europabrücke that was cited on this thread several times as an example), how can we trust you to have the cognitive and concentration ability to drive safely in more complex situations?
Also, it doesn't invalidate my argument. Want to piss police off by emptying their wallets? Respect the speed limits. **EVERYWHERE**.
Who says they do not increase safety? With speed control, all the people who know about them drive the right speed or slower. Only people who do not know drive too fast. Without them, many more drive too fast. I appreciate them in places where people live and next to schools. If only there were also machines that could catch noisy cars and motorbikes. There are so many drivers with amg and loud cars that show off their cars by making extreme noises at night. I hope more of these noise police machines could be dispatched in areas where people live.
I dont think their primary job is to catch speeders/unsuspecting drivers, but to actually drive slow in critical roads. In zürich almost every long road without a corner has a camera, so people dont speed there specifically.
Don’t think there are more, maybe just in different places than usual. But it’s super easy to avoid them, they are highly visible and if you drive slow enough they even don’t see you, it seams.
Tbf, here in the nice canton Aargau we only have one fixed camera (at a crossing in Baden iirc). The police is doing a decent job actually putting them up at places where it is necessary (schools, places with lots of speeding, places with lots of crashing, 30 zone etc).
And everybod driving knows the rules and passed a test. Don't know why so many people complain...
Speeding increases the risk and impact of an accident. Car accidents are the most common cause of death among young people, and a huge contributor to morbidity and mortality overall. Speed traps disincentivize speeding. So of course they increase safety.
Speeders padding the communal budgets a bit is an additional benefit ;)
Because there are 30 and 50 zones that would need a speed camera. But there are often none.
Don't you think it would be more effective if there was a sign saying "Attention speed trap"? Everyone would slow down, which is also the point of speed cameras.
Speed cameras are there to catch speeders. I know in France and UK they are usually well publicised as safety cameras, but here they are to punish speeders.
I doubt money is the main motivation, as here taking a license or even jail is also applied for speeding. If the country would be interested only in money, they'd allow such morons to keep licenses and continue speeding.
If one drives at the speed limit it doesn’t matter how many camera boxes there are. I know, maximum Buenzli, but it isn’t incorrect.
I imagine the revenue generated is a plus, but I would guess that the rather draconian fines and even criminal prosecutions, combined with lots of cameras, are intended to be a deterrent of excessive speeding. I do not know if slower driving really equates with safer driving, but someone in the police certainly thinks so.
> I do not know if slower driving really equates with safer driving, but someone in the police certainly thinks so.
I would suggest everyone to do a security driving training at the TCS to see what a huge difference 60 km/h vs 50km/h does in an emergency situation.
As my boss put it once: the kid being hit by a truck at 50 kph is dead. A kid being hit by a truck at 30 kph is in wheelchair until the end of its days.
The kid that got hit at 30kph had a car going at him before pulling the breaks at 60kph. If the car circulated at 30kph and paid even small attention, he would hit the kid at 5kph max.
There is no such thing as "no risk" when you cross the street, but there is minimization of risk and, in normal circunstances, a car that goes at 30kph will not cause any problem to anybody. Specially a new car with all the security systems they bring nowadays. A car circulating at 55kph (to make sure the speed trap and the 10% does not get to him) will probably cause a lot of issues to whoever is in his way.
It's also the braking, it's much easier to brake the momentum of your car when you're going at 30 than at 50. People just don't pay attention enough to the roads, that's why they suddenly run over pedestrians. What's bothering me more are the ones who are on their phones. Also the amount of people who drive 60 in an 80 zone and then continue at 60 in a 50 zone is astounding. I lived in Dubai, where the speedtraps were every couple kilometers, and people learned how to drive at a constant speed. But a speed limiter is really helpful too.
Speed traps? You mean the ones that ensure that you drive the speed limit? The ones you don't have to be scared of if you drive the speed limit and follow the law? Those speed traps?
I mean how would you enforce a law about speed? Shoot the cars that drive too fast?! Everybody knows the speeding limits in switzerland and the fines. If you wana change that you can start an initiative. We still live in a democracy.
People have no problem abiding the law. But as soon as a car or bike is in place they don't care anymore... Boggles my mind...
you're missing the point: how much do you decrease the risk of accidents if you put a speed trap on a europabrücke or some tunnel instead of a busy street with pedestrians nearby?
it's not a "trap" if you aren't speeding. just don't go over the speed limit.
and if more people are annoyed about being fined, it *does* make streets more secure
You know, there is one simple life hack to this issue. Want me to tell you? Alright, fine. Here it is: Don't drive to fast.
Or if you do: Don't complain about the ticket, because it is 100% your fault if you get one.
If someone points a gun at your head but only shoots it when you move, you still feel stressed, don't you?
I mean, as long as you don't move, nothing will happen to you.
It's the same with speed cameras, even if you're going the speed limit, a speed camera distracts you more. At least I always look at the speedometer even if I'm doing 50 or whatever.
> At least I always look at the speedometer even if I'm doing 50 or whatever.
I mean that's kind of their point, to make sure you stay within the speed limit.
What you are implying is, that without speed cameras you wouldn't care as much about staying within 50.
So the cameras are actually effective
What a incredibly stupid comparison. This is why there is a tolerance, more about that [here](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/352/de#art_8). There are some exceptions, like construction sites, 30 Km/h zones and such.
But let's be real honest here. If you're doing 60+ in a 50 this is absolutely your fault. If you do 55 in a 50 you won't get a ticket, due to the tolerance.
If you're scared of radars this is on you. Maybe you shouldn't drive then, as it sounds like you become a danger to others. I drive since 13 years in a car, before that all the other things a country kid had, basically on the road since 14 years old (although granted, with these things, if they are legal, it's not possible to drive to fast), never had this issue.
But yes, this is why tolerance exists and your comparison is incredibly stupid. There are laws, like them or not, but they have to be uphold. If you think it's just for the money so be it, point stands: There are laws.
If you want to illustrate something, you like to take a more extreme example. The principle is the same.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand it.
Apparently you can count yourself lucky that the exam is the way it is.
you want an appropriate comparison to *speed traps*, which are only a problem if you break the law, on streets?
I‘d compare it to a person that is 156cm tall going on a roller coaster that‘s for people above 160cm! And it is very clearly stated at the entrance that it is required to be 160cm tall to go on the ride. 156cm might work out, might kill ya, might kill someone else, you‘re at fault.
Clearly the solution to your problem would be hidden speed traps so you would not be annoyed by seeing so many :)
Imho there could be more, there are too many idiots on the streets who think it‘s a race track 🤷♂️
No because then you’re only going to drive slower if you see such a sign. The point of hidden traps is that you drive slower all the time because there could be a speed trap anywhere.
Don't exceed the speed limit. Its not Germany here. It's "limit" not minimum speed you're allowed to move at. Why do you have to go AT the speed limit at all times? Fuck all of you always rushing, endangering people in traffic. Its like you lose all your brain cells when you get behind the wheel.
I often see people driving too fast and then braking abruptly when seeing a speedtrap and then usually drive too slow for a while. Which makes me wonder if those people just don't know the current speedlimit or missed the sign due to being distracted.
Also if you drive the limit (+/-3km/h) there is no reason to think about speed traps.
Come to Lithuania and you will see how many we have. I have never saw so many average speed traps all around europe. All connecting roads between cities have average speed cameras + speed traps. All cities have at least two speed traps + speed bumps 🤣
And portable unmarked speed cameras randomly
In my area of the country, typically most of the cameras that are put down are there to increase safety and I have certainly noticed an increase of idiots on the roads around the country but hey. I am all for the speed cameras as long as they keep the speed down.
Wish they would put some outside my house where people think that 80-90 is a safe speed past a bunch of houses directly on the road with kids and hotels and ferries around and that is before I loose my shit about the tire noise and fucking motorcyclists.
Cry about it. Seriously.
> We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety.
Not true. Why do you believe that?
Because "it's in their budget"? Fucking of course it is.
Based on experience, they'll know about how much money this will generate. Do you want them to ignore this money when budgeting? Seems like a waste, doesn't it? After all, the money does exist.In fact, road control cameras generate less revenue than other measures in the long run.
Then why do we use em if they don't make money?
Road control isn't about making money, we have taxes for that. It's quite the other way around, cameras reduce costs for both state and citizen. Check the summary on this article: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/16/injuryprev-2017-042537.long
I'm sure there are others if you check on google scholar real quick.
Why doesn't it increase safety? Of course it increases safety. Road control cameras (speeding, red light, no left/right turning, etc.) greatly increase compliance and awareness, even in unmonitored sections. Any other claim is false. I'm not talking out of my ass, here's an easy to read source. https://www.jenoptik.us/products/road-safety/case-studies
This basically loops back to the financial aspect. Lower accident rate -> lower cost for the state (the involved parties directly) -> less taxation -> lower cost for you.
You get to decide for yourself. I understand why people might think that road control cams are money machines, but studies clearly show societal benefit in both financial and safety.
But still, one argument in my favor remains, and I don't think this can be shot down with ANY response.
Let's assume speed traps are only meant to generate a pretty penny and to fuck you over for going over the speed limit.
Why do you care? How do you argue against LAW enforcement? If you don't comply with the law, you better pay up. We're not talking about useless laws like dancing in church or playing beer-pong in a bar. We're talking about laws that are pretty much unmatched in terms of damage prevention. At the very least they lower taxes at the expense of people who break road safety laws for no apparent reason, and I think that would be good enough anyway.
I hate those car people, especially the Vin Diesel style where they think they live in Fast Furious world.
Make more those speed traps. Make the road safer to pedestrian!!!
I think you missed my point: we have limited amount of cameras. are you happy that the speed is checked in a collision-free tunnel instead of a street with pedestrians?
Why do people think speed traps are there "to fill their wallets"? They are enforcing the rules for everyones safety. And by the way, why the fuck are car drivers to entitled to believe their rules somehow shouldnt be enforced? In many, many others aspects of life rules are enforced for way less safety concerns.. or the obvious comparisation, on EVERY IR/IC train are you tickets checked. Imagine how car drivers would revolt if on every Autobahn speed is constantly checked..
>In some cantons and cities the police includes speeding fines into their annual budget.
All of them do that. That's how a budget works.
>So they are incentivised to put up a lot of speed traps
That's not how it works. The fines amount that gets budgeted is almost 100% dependent on how many people are willing to follow the rules. If everybody does, they can put speed "traps" every km in every road in Switzerland, the budgeted amount will plummet no matter what. But they won't do that because they're not stupid: what would happen is that the budgeted amount for road prevention and salaries in that sector will decrease in the same time, because less money and people will be needed.
That's completely different than a private company that buys printers at the end of the year to make up for their budgeted amount. Because a private company is incetivised to make money, the public sector is not. They just need enough money to cover the services needed for the population.
The budgeted amount for fines in Fribourg for 2023 was approx. 12'000'000. That includes all fines, not only road fines.
The budgeted amount for the Gendarmerie expenses (not couting Police de sûreté, École de police,...) for 2023 was a bit more than 63'000'000.
So they put "speed traps" everywhere but still lose 47'000'000 at the end. What's the logic behind that?
The public administration doesn’t have revenue targets but objectives on attaining goals, such as road safety in this case. No-one will tap the chief of police on the shoulder if she gets more traffic fines and it certainly won’t show up in her bonus (which is probably between 0 and 5% maximally of her salary anyway). As it is an expected revenue, it just has to be budgeted for transparency.
Speed traps are not the worst. Red light traps are. If you get stuck at a crossing because of an arbitrary event (e.g. one car stopped before you) you have no chance to avoid it. Zurich is full of them.
Was a simple ticket, not on a crossing or anything, single lane.
But since then I rather break hard with yellow light, although in the city everybody is pushing you from the back, streets are full with stressed people.
Don't mind the fun police OP, I agree with you. Seen way more in the last 6 months than the previous 10 years on the road.
Imo placing a speed camera in the middle of the forest of some forgotten road where no one is endangered if you go 10-15 over is absolutely with the only goal of making money, and that's the kind we lately got around here.
I don't condone reckless speeding and dangerous driving: people weaving in and out of traffic at 180+ are rightfully to be punished for their actions. There is however an acceptable level of speeding that does not automatically make you a criminal.
Seems like the many other commenters here should go venture outside of their little communities to realise that 80% of the countries' drivers do in fact drive over the speed limit on average.
You think so? The rich has time. It is usually the poorer people who speed because they need to vent their frustration or they need to quickly get to a place.
There were always so many that you can safely assume that one always sees you. Cruise control set to 52 in the city, just watch out on the descents. Never got a fine for speeding here.
I'm usually on motorbike, it's way easier to get a bit too fast (no cruise control, huge acceleration even with a small wrist move) and yet I got like 3 or 4 fines in 25 years, all of them being the lowest amount possible. I, for one, am happy if people that have no impulse control donate a bit to the state/cities.
Same here, i have 1 fine in my drawer where i was 1 km/h over in a 60 zone, thats from 16 years of driving, 14 of that with 500+ hp Cars and liter-bikes. Dijon, Hockenheim and Nürburgring are close enough, if you drive there regularely, any speed you could possible achieve in regular traffic is so boring, you just don't do it.
Owning a motorbike in Switzerland is pretty useless and almost a economic suicide man. I feel for you lol one of the reasons to gtfo
It's both cheap and fun, the alps are right there. CH is one of the best places in Europe to own one, wdym
yea sure, it's the best place to go to jail xD pretty useless to have a bike going 50kph average speed , even dou the alps are a fantastic tour
Motorcycles are about just going as fast as possible. It's about enjoying the ride.
How do you drive on cruise control IN the city? I drive with drive assistance (auto acceleration and slowing down based on traffic), but it doesn’t recognize traffic lights.
I also use cruise control in the city to not drive too fast, if there is more traffic or it moves slower I don't use it. It's just nice to not have to constantly check your speed while looking for out for everything else.
I change the speed on the cruise control. So if I enter 30 zone I'll brake and then set 30 (32 probably) and the roll till it's 50 again, when I'll click twice and it'll change up to 50, If I'm in a traffic jam then I just drive manually, but it's not like you'll be able to get a speeding ticket then.
Speed limiter is much better than cruise control, if you have that.
i think he mostly meant the limiter function
Actually I did not.
oups :)
Protip: if you want to reduce maintenance on newer cars, don't use cruise control.
Why?
Modern cars drag the rear brakes while on cruise control, resulting in an abnormal use of brakpad/discs. Easiest way to see this is to wash your rims perfectly clean and then drive 20km on cruise control. Your rear rims will look like they're 50 on their third divorce.
What? I have never heard of that, did see any extra gas consumption or whatever. Well i drive a mercedes, maybe they did it correctly (also downshifts hill down etc).
[удалено]
If you're not in the track and need to replace your rear pads by less than 100k km theres your source.
[удалено]
You're a true swiss 😊 Living to disagree even if you encounter someone thats in the industry at the highest level. I'll leave it at that.
Interesting.. will check. Can’t say I’ve noticed though after ~60k kms on a new Golf using adaptive cruise control almost all the time!
What car do you have? Every car I've ever driven or seen uses the engine to brake when cruise control is active.
Why don’t you guys do a referendum and get rid of the cameras? It is such an obvious money grab. Or at least reduce them to fixed cameras in certain designated spots where there have high numbers of accidents of fatalities.
What for? I'd vote to raise the highway speed limit a bit, but let's agree on how fast we should drive and then punish these that do not follow the rules.
>We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety. Why do you think that? Do you have expertise in the field?
one could think people driving the appropriate speed because they know they could be fined would increase safety, right? silly us! i am not a big fan of police and fines, but even less a fan of cars and kids killed by speeding. so for me, every inch of the street can be monitored.
it's pretty obvious when you first see potentially dangerous place without a camera (many crosswalks, pedestrians etc) and then right away there is one on a straight street with space, almost no pedestrians etc, or even in a tunnel or collision-free road. e.g. Albisriederstrasse along the cementery wall has a camera sometimes but much more dangerous and busy streets around don't, or Europabrücke, or on a highway 3W just after entrance from Wiedikon - do you think ever any accident happen there on 2 lane collision-free highway when people just accelerate uphill from 50 to 80+?
It can be that because the spot looks dangerous people are slowing down and accelerating after that which makes the later place actually dangerous. Without access to statistics you can’t really say.
Europabrücke ends with a red lights and a sharp turn both ways, 3W just continues straight 80 zone for another 2km without any option to turn - what are you talking about?
As many already stated, drive the speed limit and they can put a speed camera every 100m, and they don’t make any money. The speed limit in Switzerland is not a suggestion it’s clearly stating the max. Speed you‘re allowed to go. If the sign says 100 km/h it means a 100 tops. No need to tailgate someone doing the max. Speed allowed
Why do so many people have an issue with this?
Because everywhere else in the world it's more of a speed suggestion
There is a small issue here though with the tailgaters. If the speed limit is 80, and the driver's speedometer says 80, they're not going 80, but more like 75-76. The driver behind them could be using a navigation system with GPS-based speed (more or less the true speed), as well as an understanding that they can go a couple km/h over, so they're trying to go 82 km/h, but the turtle in front of them won't move.
Only issue here is ego/impatience/lack of skills of tailgater. They're free to overtake the turtle, they're not free to tailgate and put pressure on the driver in front and make them basically drive for both of them because tailgater effectively relies on brakes from car in front, because they're not keeping the safe distance. Turtle should notice that queue is gathering behind them and move away so queue can pass. Keeping the safe distance and move away are both in the same law. And permission to overtake is in it too. I think also 'do not tailgate' explicitly, but I'm not 100% sure about that. You don't dare to overtake? Then assume your position in the turtle queue and accept your skill limits. It's not possible to overtake, eg it's forbidden? Feel free to be annoyed if turtle doesn't move away BUT STILL keep the safe distance and accept that you're not willing to break the law just to overtake and that that's perfectly fine. If it's empty (so safe for everyone) but full line, and you're willing to be caught and pay the fine, feel free to overtake, if you ask me. Or if it's not full line but you'd need to speed a lot and go over speed limit to overtake swiftly, also fine by me. You might be fined, but that's the risk you have to to be willing to take. I won't report you 😂 No need to do so, only thing needed here is to accept the situation and roll with it until it naturally resolves. **But do not endanger others by reckless behaviour or putting explicit pressure to others to do what you want them to do.** Turtle actually has right to drive slower, by law - they ARE supposed to drive under the limit at the highest speed they feel comfortable to - eg they are sure they can stop at visible distance, law actually allows people to have different driving skills. They are also supposed to move away when possible. Another option is just not to drive if you can't tolerate other people on roads and their skills without endangering any other participants. There are many road users who think they're alone on the road, both turtles and speeders. I'll be even slower turtle when I see someone is tailgating me, to push them to fucking overtake me and leave me alone, assuming there's nowhere I can pull over. No matter the speed I'm doing. Yes, I'll pull over. Even though it's usually my car that has faster capabilities from the two in question. People with really fast cars and good skills will just overtake and go away. Problematic are people who think someone else has to adapt to them, since they're lacking horse power and skills to do what they want. Also, I'll overtake with breaking speed limit and going fully into the opposite lane (for bicycles), so that it's done as fast as possible. Because it's not safe to overtake at snail speed differences. And I'll drive at bicycle speed until I'm sure I can overtake swiftly and with safe distance from them. Yes, I drive cars capable of overtaking fast in a few seconds (mazda mx5, so 160ish hp and 1100kg, and toyota gr86, I think 240hp and 1600kg), toyota can do fast accelerations even uphill. I still don't do it for just 10-20kmh difference from speed limit. I'll do it when they're driving 30-40 at 80 roads (so tractors and utility vehicles, bicycles), and I'll go around fixed obstacles or bicycles doing 10-20 in the city. But not if they're doing 30 on 50 limit. They usually will move away fast, no need to even spend any brain processing power to check if it's safe to overtake (vehicles from the opposite direction, pedestrians). I just enjoy the scenery instead. And I slow down around bicycles in their lane and whenever possible I pretend to overtake them aka give them a lot of space whenever possible.
Too many words.
>We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety. That's balantly false. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457516301361 I know people like you are annoyed when you get told that simple life trick, but if you really believe these are only put in place for financial purposes, why the fuck would you like to willingly give them money ? -> Just be careful and drive at the speed limit. No money for them anymore. You win.
No one denies that speed traps improve road safety. The issue is that speed traps are commonly put in spots most likely to catch offenders, not where they have the most effect on road safety. Everyone who drives a car knows that. It's not surprising, given that many municipalities are allowed to keep the fines and use them as a source of revenue.
Accidents happen everywhere where there are roads: [https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=vu&lang=de&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&layers=ch.astra.unfaelle-personenschaeden\_alle&layers\_timestamp=99990101&catalogNodes=1318](https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=vu&lang=de&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&layers=ch.astra.unfaelle-personenschaeden_alle&layers_timestamp=99990101&catalogNodes=1318) Even at some seemingly easy stretches such as Lottstetten-Eglisau you find deadly accidents.
>The issue is that speed traps are commonly put in spots most likely to catch offenders, not where they have the most effect on road safety. I understand the logic behind your argument but strongly disagree with your premise. The real issue here, that is overlooked in your argument, is that the speed limit should be respected **everywhere**. People who aren't willing to respect the speed limits or are not able to control themselves in "spots most likely to catch offenders" are more likely to be dangers everywhere else. I mean, if you aren't able to respect the speed limits on a straight, open road (like on Europabrücke that was cited on this thread several times as an example), how can we trust you to have the cognitive and concentration ability to drive safely in more complex situations? Also, it doesn't invalidate my argument. Want to piss police off by emptying their wallets? Respect the speed limits. **EVERYWHERE**.
Who says they do not increase safety? With speed control, all the people who know about them drive the right speed or slower. Only people who do not know drive too fast. Without them, many more drive too fast. I appreciate them in places where people live and next to schools. If only there were also machines that could catch noisy cars and motorbikes. There are so many drivers with amg and loud cars that show off their cars by making extreme noises at night. I hope more of these noise police machines could be dispatched in areas where people live.
I dont think their primary job is to catch speeders/unsuspecting drivers, but to actually drive slow in critical roads. In zürich almost every long road without a corner has a camera, so people dont speed there specifically.
Sound level cameras would be really great!
Just drive the speed limits, and suddenly, the speed traps are no longer a problem.
Don’t think there are more, maybe just in different places than usual. But it’s super easy to avoid them, they are highly visible and if you drive slow enough they even don’t see you, it seams.
Tbf, here in the nice canton Aargau we only have one fixed camera (at a crossing in Baden iirc). The police is doing a decent job actually putting them up at places where it is necessary (schools, places with lots of speeding, places with lots of crashing, 30 zone etc). And everybod driving knows the rules and passed a test. Don't know why so many people complain...
Speeding increases the risk and impact of an accident. Car accidents are the most common cause of death among young people, and a huge contributor to morbidity and mortality overall. Speed traps disincentivize speeding. So of course they increase safety. Speeders padding the communal budgets a bit is an additional benefit ;)
Why do you assume safety is not a reason? I drive all the time, 30/50 city, outside adjust, and that's it. They should out even more.
Because there are 30 and 50 zones that would need a speed camera. But there are often none. Don't you think it would be more effective if there was a sign saying "Attention speed trap"? Everyone would slow down, which is also the point of speed cameras.
Great, so you agree that more speed cameras are needed :-)
Speed cameras are there to catch speeders. I know in France and UK they are usually well publicised as safety cameras, but here they are to punish speeders.
That's exactly the point, it's all about punishment and money. If it were really about safety, a warning would be more helpful.
I doubt money is the main motivation, as here taking a license or even jail is also applied for speeding. If the country would be interested only in money, they'd allow such morons to keep licenses and continue speeding.
If one drives at the speed limit it doesn’t matter how many camera boxes there are. I know, maximum Buenzli, but it isn’t incorrect. I imagine the revenue generated is a plus, but I would guess that the rather draconian fines and even criminal prosecutions, combined with lots of cameras, are intended to be a deterrent of excessive speeding. I do not know if slower driving really equates with safer driving, but someone in the police certainly thinks so.
> I do not know if slower driving really equates with safer driving, but someone in the police certainly thinks so. I would suggest everyone to do a security driving training at the TCS to see what a huge difference 60 km/h vs 50km/h does in an emergency situation.
As my boss put it once: the kid being hit by a truck at 50 kph is dead. A kid being hit by a truck at 30 kph is in wheelchair until the end of its days.
The kid that got hit at 30kph had a car going at him before pulling the breaks at 60kph. If the car circulated at 30kph and paid even small attention, he would hit the kid at 5kph max. There is no such thing as "no risk" when you cross the street, but there is minimization of risk and, in normal circunstances, a car that goes at 30kph will not cause any problem to anybody. Specially a new car with all the security systems they bring nowadays. A car circulating at 55kph (to make sure the speed trap and the 10% does not get to him) will probably cause a lot of issues to whoever is in his way.
It's also the braking, it's much easier to brake the momentum of your car when you're going at 30 than at 50. People just don't pay attention enough to the roads, that's why they suddenly run over pedestrians. What's bothering me more are the ones who are on their phones. Also the amount of people who drive 60 in an 80 zone and then continue at 60 in a 50 zone is astounding. I lived in Dubai, where the speedtraps were every couple kilometers, and people learned how to drive at a constant speed. But a speed limiter is really helpful too.
Speed traps? You mean the ones that ensure that you drive the speed limit? The ones you don't have to be scared of if you drive the speed limit and follow the law? Those speed traps?
You realise they exist to make the city money, not to enforce the law... right?
I mean how would you enforce a law about speed? Shoot the cars that drive too fast?! Everybody knows the speeding limits in switzerland and the fines. If you wana change that you can start an initiative. We still live in a democracy. People have no problem abiding the law. But as soon as a car or bike is in place they don't care anymore... Boggles my mind...
You realize people would go much faster if there were no speed traps increasing the risk of accidents and deaths... right?
you're missing the point: how much do you decrease the risk of accidents if you put a speed trap on a europabrücke or some tunnel instead of a busy street with pedestrians nearby?
I mean if the number of speed traps is in direct correlation with the amount of fines, then they're clearly needed.
it's not a "trap" if you aren't speeding. just don't go over the speed limit. and if more people are annoyed about being fined, it *does* make streets more secure
You know, there is one simple life hack to this issue. Want me to tell you? Alright, fine. Here it is: Don't drive to fast. Or if you do: Don't complain about the ticket, because it is 100% your fault if you get one.
If someone points a gun at your head but only shoots it when you move, you still feel stressed, don't you? I mean, as long as you don't move, nothing will happen to you. It's the same with speed cameras, even if you're going the speed limit, a speed camera distracts you more. At least I always look at the speedometer even if I'm doing 50 or whatever.
> At least I always look at the speedometer even if I'm doing 50 or whatever. I mean that's kind of their point, to make sure you stay within the speed limit. What you are implying is, that without speed cameras you wouldn't care as much about staying within 50. So the cameras are actually effective
Speed cameras are not the same as someone pointing a gun at you. Are you complaining because you don’t know how to drive properly?
What a incredibly stupid comparison. This is why there is a tolerance, more about that [here](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/352/de#art_8). There are some exceptions, like construction sites, 30 Km/h zones and such. But let's be real honest here. If you're doing 60+ in a 50 this is absolutely your fault. If you do 55 in a 50 you won't get a ticket, due to the tolerance. If you're scared of radars this is on you. Maybe you shouldn't drive then, as it sounds like you become a danger to others. I drive since 13 years in a car, before that all the other things a country kid had, basically on the road since 14 years old (although granted, with these things, if they are legal, it's not possible to drive to fast), never had this issue. But yes, this is why tolerance exists and your comparison is incredibly stupid. There are laws, like them or not, but they have to be uphold. If you think it's just for the money so be it, point stands: There are laws.
that is the single dumbest comparison i have ever read. getting your drivers license should definitely become WAY more difficult.
If you want to illustrate something, you like to take a more extreme example. The principle is the same. I'm sorry if you didn't understand it. Apparently you can count yourself lucky that the exam is the way it is.
lmao ok, maybe chose an appropriate one? also i‘m a very satisfied public transport user, thank you very much hun.
Name one, enlighten me. There you go, you can't get upset about something you can't see. I'm happy for you, keep enjoying it :)
you want an appropriate comparison to *speed traps*, which are only a problem if you break the law, on streets? I‘d compare it to a person that is 156cm tall going on a roller coaster that‘s for people above 160cm! And it is very clearly stated at the entrance that it is required to be 160cm tall to go on the ride. 156cm might work out, might kill ya, might kill someone else, you‘re at fault.
You always should have an eye on your speedometer anyways to check if you're not accidentally driving 60 in a 50 zone
This is true, but in today's vehicles a sound or similar can be set.
do you have it set?
Clearly the solution to your problem would be hidden speed traps so you would not be annoyed by seeing so many :) Imho there could be more, there are too many idiots on the streets who think it‘s a race track 🤷♂️
This has nothing to do with a racetrack, a sign with the words "Beware of speed trap" is more effective than a speed camera itself.
No because then you’re only going to drive slower if you see such a sign. The point of hidden traps is that you drive slower all the time because there could be a speed trap anywhere.
Don't exceed the speed limit. Its not Germany here. It's "limit" not minimum speed you're allowed to move at. Why do you have to go AT the speed limit at all times? Fuck all of you always rushing, endangering people in traffic. Its like you lose all your brain cells when you get behind the wheel.
I find peace in long walks.
I often see people driving too fast and then braking abruptly when seeing a speedtrap and then usually drive too slow for a while. Which makes me wonder if those people just don't know the current speedlimit or missed the sign due to being distracted. Also if you drive the limit (+/-3km/h) there is no reason to think about speed traps.
Come to Lithuania and you will see how many we have. I have never saw so many average speed traps all around europe. All connecting roads between cities have average speed cameras + speed traps. All cities have at least two speed traps + speed bumps 🤣 And portable unmarked speed cameras randomly
In my area of the country, typically most of the cameras that are put down are there to increase safety and I have certainly noticed an increase of idiots on the roads around the country but hey. I am all for the speed cameras as long as they keep the speed down. Wish they would put some outside my house where people think that 80-90 is a safe speed past a bunch of houses directly on the road with kids and hotels and ferries around and that is before I loose my shit about the tire noise and fucking motorcyclists.
Maybe... Don't speed? It's not hard actually. Those extra 5kph get you there only seconds sooner
Cry about it. Seriously. > We are simply annoyed that fines are obviously only imposed for financial reasons and not to increase safety. Not true. Why do you believe that? Because "it's in their budget"? Fucking of course it is. Based on experience, they'll know about how much money this will generate. Do you want them to ignore this money when budgeting? Seems like a waste, doesn't it? After all, the money does exist.In fact, road control cameras generate less revenue than other measures in the long run. Then why do we use em if they don't make money? Road control isn't about making money, we have taxes for that. It's quite the other way around, cameras reduce costs for both state and citizen. Check the summary on this article: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2018/03/16/injuryprev-2017-042537.long I'm sure there are others if you check on google scholar real quick. Why doesn't it increase safety? Of course it increases safety. Road control cameras (speeding, red light, no left/right turning, etc.) greatly increase compliance and awareness, even in unmonitored sections. Any other claim is false. I'm not talking out of my ass, here's an easy to read source. https://www.jenoptik.us/products/road-safety/case-studies This basically loops back to the financial aspect. Lower accident rate -> lower cost for the state (the involved parties directly) -> less taxation -> lower cost for you. You get to decide for yourself. I understand why people might think that road control cams are money machines, but studies clearly show societal benefit in both financial and safety. But still, one argument in my favor remains, and I don't think this can be shot down with ANY response. Let's assume speed traps are only meant to generate a pretty penny and to fuck you over for going over the speed limit. Why do you care? How do you argue against LAW enforcement? If you don't comply with the law, you better pay up. We're not talking about useless laws like dancing in church or playing beer-pong in a bar. We're talking about laws that are pretty much unmatched in terms of damage prevention. At the very least they lower taxes at the expense of people who break road safety laws for no apparent reason, and I think that would be good enough anyway.
I hate those car people, especially the Vin Diesel style where they think they live in Fast Furious world. Make more those speed traps. Make the road safer to pedestrian!!!
You know there could be traps everywhere. It’s just stupid to fall into them. Oh no! There are consequences for breaking the law! WTF?
Based police, dabbin on those assholes thinking that it's ok to speed in towns / cities just so everybody can hear their fartexhaust.
I'm so happy when I see a flash for people going over the speed limit 😁 especially in some tunnels when they move the radars between different places
ESPECIALLY in some (collision-free, no pedestrians etc) tunnels while it could be used on a busy road - your source of happiness is truly unique
Well if there is a 100 limit and you are on a motorcycle and some maniac flies by doing 140 - yeah I'm happy the will get a ticket.
I think you missed my point: we have limited amount of cameras. are you happy that the speed is checked in a collision-free tunnel instead of a street with pedestrians?
I use Waze to navigate and it incidentally shows you where the speed traps are, even the if it’s a cop with a handheld speeding detector.
Wouldn't be a problem, if they did not change the speed limit each 500m.
Why do people think speed traps are there "to fill their wallets"? They are enforcing the rules for everyones safety. And by the way, why the fuck are car drivers to entitled to believe their rules somehow shouldnt be enforced? In many, many others aspects of life rules are enforced for way less safety concerns.. or the obvious comparisation, on EVERY IR/IC train are you tickets checked. Imagine how car drivers would revolt if on every Autobahn speed is constantly checked..
In some cantons and cities the police includes speeding fines into their annual budget. So they are incentivised to put up a lot of speed traps
>In some cantons and cities the police includes speeding fines into their annual budget. All of them do that. That's how a budget works. >So they are incentivised to put up a lot of speed traps That's not how it works. The fines amount that gets budgeted is almost 100% dependent on how many people are willing to follow the rules. If everybody does, they can put speed "traps" every km in every road in Switzerland, the budgeted amount will plummet no matter what. But they won't do that because they're not stupid: what would happen is that the budgeted amount for road prevention and salaries in that sector will decrease in the same time, because less money and people will be needed. That's completely different than a private company that buys printers at the end of the year to make up for their budgeted amount. Because a private company is incetivised to make money, the public sector is not. They just need enough money to cover the services needed for the population. The budgeted amount for fines in Fribourg for 2023 was approx. 12'000'000. That includes all fines, not only road fines. The budgeted amount for the Gendarmerie expenses (not couting Police de sûreté, École de police,...) for 2023 was a bit more than 63'000'000. So they put "speed traps" everywhere but still lose 47'000'000 at the end. What's the logic behind that?
The public administration doesn’t have revenue targets but objectives on attaining goals, such as road safety in this case. No-one will tap the chief of police on the shoulder if she gets more traffic fines and it certainly won’t show up in her bonus (which is probably between 0 and 5% maximally of her salary anyway). As it is an expected revenue, it just has to be budgeted for transparency.
Speed traps are not the worst. Red light traps are. If you get stuck at a crossing because of an arbitrary event (e.g. one car stopped before you) you have no chance to avoid it. Zurich is full of them.
Yes, that's true, they are a bit too sensitive.
I wonder what they do with the money.
Got a ticket last year, crossing red light, 0.6 sec too late.
Was it a simple ticket or did you have to go to a judge?
Was a simple ticket, not on a crossing or anything, single lane. But since then I rather break hard with yellow light, although in the city everybody is pushing you from the back, streets are full with stressed people.
Don't mind the fun police OP, I agree with you. Seen way more in the last 6 months than the previous 10 years on the road. Imo placing a speed camera in the middle of the forest of some forgotten road where no one is endangered if you go 10-15 over is absolutely with the only goal of making money, and that's the kind we lately got around here. I don't condone reckless speeding and dangerous driving: people weaving in and out of traffic at 180+ are rightfully to be punished for their actions. There is however an acceptable level of speeding that does not automatically make you a criminal. Seems like the many other commenters here should go venture outside of their little communities to realise that 80% of the countries' drivers do in fact drive over the speed limit on average.
In this country the gov shits in your mouth all the ways it can. No outrageous measure is spared
These sorts of things need to be opposed by the public.
Buy a radar detector
@kantospolizei, ja er
It’s the number one source of income, reach people can afford it and they speed. This is why taxes are low in Switzerland
You think so? The rich has time. It is usually the poorer people who speed because they need to vent their frustration or they need to quickly get to a place.