By G.R. Whale
It's said the average Briton is photographed by some kind of camera 300 times a day, but it was a plain old policeman and radar gun that caught a guy doing 172 mph in a 911 last year, resetting the bar for bad behavior caught on tape. In my neck of the woods they have red-light cameras and traditional law enforcement for speeders, yet those radar-driven warning signs are multiplying like rabbits.
Such fixed-post units, known to the more politically correct as "traffic-calming devices," apparently are installed to make drivers aware of their speed-what we old-timers always thought the speedometer was for. The city also uses the towable radar trailers, but the police-in-training cadets have been known to put the wrong speed-limit sign on them, not turn them on, and so forth. Typically, if you pass one going more than the posted limit it flashes your speed at you-like an old school matron's waving finger- implying that you're doing something naughty (which assumes there isn't some other bad kid behind you). Some of these units are even programmed to go blank if high or quickly increasing speeds are detected, so they don't encourage racing.
But the devices I run into aren't radar cameras and don't generate tickets. That would open a new set of issues, not least of which are the concepts of facing your accuser in court or that of prima facie reasonable and prudent speeds.
I've been passing one of these signs weekly for a year and when there's no traffic around I'm amazed at how seldom the display agrees with the speedometer in different cars. And now that I've got many to choose from locally, I've discovered another quirk: Different signs indicate different speeds for the same car.
It took more than a few passes, but in two vehicles, both with the tires fully warmed up, signs less than 10 minutes apart didn't always agree with each other. The car's speedometer was backed up with a handheld radar gun and GPS for the target speeds (more than one was used), same lane, same weather conditions, same indicated speed-and different results. By more than one mph.
Various Web sites put the accuracy of these K-band radar signs at +/- 1 mph, with others cite it as +/- 1 mph and +/- 1 kph. That's a major indicator something isn't right: We all know one mph doesn't equal one kph. We'd hope the margin of error is in the display and not the actual tracked speed.
So somewhere along the road at least one of these signs is incorrect. A law-enforcement source we spoke with called them "not really accurate," allowing they were usually within 3-4 mph of actual speed. Aiming can be an issue that points the gun outside the typical 12-degree window-imagine a sign that's been hit slightly trying to track a low car, or improperly installed in a public works project that wasn't performed exactly to specs: Stranger things have happened. And since the sign doesn't generate tickets, it may escape legal requirements on calibration, which, in California, requires an outside certification every three years on a law-enforcement speed gun. In my town, the guns are checked with a tuning fork at start and end of each shift and outside-certified every year. I asked suppliers of these devices about their accuracy and maintenance (no one responded), although the typical warranty period was less than the three-year recertification interval.
While these signs are designed to make you more aware, cautious, and generally slower, there is the implication a municipal entity is telling you what your speed is, regardless of your speedometer indication. If you mistakenly or otherwise believe the radar sign to be accurate, you might drive according to the displays more than your speedometer; there are many times I'll go faster if the sign says I'm going slower than the speedo indicates. And if the sign speed is off and your speedometer is indeed correct, who's responsible for any speeding ticket you get within, or close to, that error?
It appears I might have to get caught to find out. Or maybe a reader will run into this issue and share with us.
Using my best legal-think, I posed this question to the city attorney's office: "If someone is cited for speed because he assumed the radar sign was accurate when it in fact was not, does that open the city to any liability in terms of the accused's court costs, potential fine/points, and so forth?"
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Next I tried to speak with a traffic-offense adjudicator to see if someone who'd been cited for speeding but had based his speed on how fast the sign displays indicated he was going. The answer was prompt this time: "Without a citation in our system you won't be able to go before our judges or commissioners." My editor won't expense traffic school if I lose.
I've concluded the city is trying to make everyone on the road more aware of his speed by displaying a number that could very well be inaccurate and posting it in bright amber 1000-point type. At best this is more light pollution and driver distraction, which will most likely result in the signs being demolished in crashes while people stare at them instead of watching where they're going.
Forget the traffic. Stuff like this is why I need a calming device.