You must log in or # to comment.
Road safety is bad mmkay
Sure sure, the speed cam after the slope in the woods is for safety, mhm.
I mean I don’t know how you could think it wouldn’t be. Well signposted camera will help you pay more attention to your speed on the slope, it’s woods so presumably animals could run out at you.
If you can’t see a bright fucking yellow speed camera, and haven’t been paying attention to the ten dozen signed, then that’s 100% on you.
They are hidden here, not yellow bright.
It’s clearly bright yellow.
Besides, you shouldn’t have to be threatened with a speed camera to just stay under the bloody speed limit. It’s literally a crime not to, and besides that it’s reckless and dangerous.
Idiots that speed in cars deserve a special kind of hell where they’re tortured by all the children their kind have murdered.
Sucks to be whenever you are I guess. I’m used to that way they work where I live.
Fixed speed camera housings located within an area of street or highway lighting should be coloured yellow either by painting both the front and back of the housing or covering both the front and back of the housing with retroreflective sheeting. In an area not covered by street or highway lighting, the speed camera housing should be treated with yellow retroreflective sheeting.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819278e5274a2e87dbe588/dft-circular-0107.pdf
In the US every state I’ve seen has to put multiple warning signs out, starting about a mile out. It’s 100% obvious.
And here is not US.
Well. Don’t keep us waiting. What country is surprising people with speed cameras?
I think whole D-A-CH? At least switzerland and germany.
Tell me you never left the US without telling me.
And BTW sweetheart, Germany has no speed limit on the motorways at all and yet it is safe. Go figure.
Another stereotype busted for me. I really thought it’s an ex-Soviet thing. “Скажи-ка, дядя, ведь недаром в кустах ты прячешься с радаром?”
Probably you should be breaking on the hill? Regardless of if your foot’s on the gas or you’re just letting the slope do the work, you’re still speeding which is a hazard.
Yeah, I’m sure it also racks up some revenue too. Why not get a few more bucks while keeping the careless on their toes?
60 instead of 50 (because steep slope) is speeding?
Yep, that’s an 8.5% mortality increase on freeways and 2.8% increase on other roads. Better keep the brake down.
I mean, i agree, but that one was really a trap. Steep slope out of the woods, hidden camera and then 100’s of meters straight unobstructed road.
cameras do NOT make the roads safer. it’s a revenue stream based off ripping off it’s citizens. if anything everyone slams on their brakes when they see one causing more accidents.
Why on Earth is this unfounded argument getting upvoted so heavily? Objectively the science says that it reduces injuries and deaths. Per the linked Cochrane systematic review of 35 studies:
Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
People on the Internet will just upvote the most confidently incorrect shit as long as it has enough confidence behind it and it vaguely aligns with their preconceptions, I swear.
I think the sentiment against them stems from the fact that there are ways to reduce speeds without feeling like they’re being used as a revenue stream.
Personally I like when there are warning signs saying “Speed camera in use ahead” since it has the effect of slowing down traffic and not feeling like a “gotcha” moment.
It should feel like a “gotcha” moment, though, or it only properly enforces speeds near the speed camera. If you can’t be certain that you’re not going to run into a speed camera but you have a general understanding that they’re around, you’re going to be much more likely not to speed in general versus just when you see the sign telling you to slow down. The reduction in speed from the sign is still better than nothing, but it lets drivers compartmentalize where there are “safe” zones to speed, and that partly defeats the purpose.
Hard to say. That study you linked mentions reductions in speed and crashes in the vicinity of the camera, which to me indicates that people are only slowing down because they know a camera is there. I suppose someone would have to do a study to see if speed cameras reduce speeds and crashes in areas where there aren’t currently cameras, but have been in the past. Meaning that people are slowing down in areas where they think there might be cameras.
Honestly msost people speeding are not putting anyone in any more danger than going the speed limit. They are just going the speed that feels correct for the road which is often correct for the road.
deleted by creator
Maybe just drive the speed limit?
yes, because no one has ever gotten a ticket or in trouble for something they didn’t do.
deleted by creator
no one said not to follow the law, but there are always exception. nothing is ever just black and white.
Better argument than “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”
Except they do make it safer and because there’s always tonnes of signs around them you don’t get the brake slamming. They act as a deterrent. Plus accidents at lower speeds are inherently less dangerous.
Mobile speed traps, however, are a definite revenue boost.
they do not post camera signs in US
Maybe you guys ought to campaign to get the law changed. They used to be grey over here, but pressure was put on the government and how they’re all high vis yellow with loads of warnings before them.
how about just not ripping off people for doing 37 in a 35?
If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class. if it were a percentage of your annual income, completely different story.
Over here if you’re just a bit over they’ll normally put you on a speed awareness course for the first time getting caught.
And I 100% agree on fines being income based. I think some of the Scandinavian countries have done that. I also think there needs to be some kind of catch for the super rich who work the system so they don’t really declare an income. Maybe if your net worth is x times the national average the fine is the greater of either a percentage of your net worth or income.
And how am I supposed to attend a speed awareness course while working over 40 hours a week?
I don’t want the law changed where I live, because these cameras are prohibited!
Several states in the USA prohibit speed cameras and traffic light cameras, because a citizen must be able to face their accuser when accused of a crime. This is a great example of freedom in the USA, where we do not let machines automatically issue fines against human beings.
The government would be the accuser?? Just because a camera is used for evidence doesn’t make the camera THE accuser. Civilized nations have a way to fight the camera-issued fine, for example if the photo doesn’t show your face.
UK is not civilised in this case. Cameras usually photograph back of a car here.
deleted by creator
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
It only seems to be since the yanks woke up.
American driver entitlement is the purest, most potent form of entitlement.
I don’t know if you knew this, but with regard to US Interstates, there’s a common saying that goes “nine you’re fine, ten you’re mine.” It’s essentially saying “under 15 kph you’re fine, but over 15 you’re busted for speeding”. That is, if you want to exceed the already quite high speed limit, you should feel safe doing up to 9 additional mph over that. And they’re actually not wrong; many police literally don’t enforce traffic law up to that point, or they only do so if they really have a bee in their bonnet. In large part this is because nearly every driver’s doing it, which is one of the main reasons why cameras are useful: it doesn’t have to stop your car, ask if you know why it pulled you over, listen to you try talking your way out of a ticket, be subject to human biases such as ethnicity, gender, and personality in determining whether to let you go with just a warning or not, and generate enough paperwork to disincentivize the enforcement of traffic law as written.
Except in a school zone, if you get pulled over doing within 5 mph (8 kph) of the speed limit, it’s seen by drivers as a huge power trip and something you should gaslight the court into believing you didn’t do, and from 5–10 mph, it’s basically seen as getting unlucky. The state of speeding in the US is so dire that even asserting that speed limits should be enforced as marked is something that will get you shouted down.
They litterally demonstrably do. Either actually engage your brain and look things up instead of parroting nonsense or take your bullshit back to reddit.
k
Do you have a source for your belief that speed cameras make the road significantly safer?
In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
Nice of you to take that out of context.
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths
They know they’re objectively beneficial, and now they just want to firmly measure to what extent that is. They nonetheless express zero doubt that it’s positive based on the existing evidence.
deleted by creator
Lemmy: Fuck cars!
Lemmy: Fuck the police!
Lemmy, when someone sabotages the most viable alternative to traffic stops to prevent people from speeding: Yes very good. This is good for society.
The most viable alternative to traffic stops is a narrow chicane with solid bollards on either side, although oher traffic calming devices are available.
Traffic cameras exist to generate revenue, not to make the streets safer. Intersections with red light cameras almost always have shorter yellow lights, to increase revenue while making the intersection less safe.
No. Traffic cameras in your area are there to generate revenue.
The camera being covered here is not at an intersection so your offtopic comment about revenue is irrelevant. This is a camera on a stretch of road where drivers usually speed, the cameras are painted bright yellow to make them obvious and do a far better job of getting people to slow for hazardous corners than a sign ever did.
Traffic Cameras can and do reduce speeding if implemented properly
They are less effective than traffic calming.
I agree, but I’m pointing out that they do indeed help if implemented correctly
What is “implemented properly” and how often does it happen?
In California the duration of yellow is determined by a formula incorporating the roads speed limit. If yellow light duration is less than the formula would set, the traffic ticket is dismissed. I’m guessing most states have a similar law.
Yes, and and those laws are frequently violated to farm more tickets.
And good luck getting a judge to hear your side of it. Not impossible, but then you’re missing a day of work for a maybe…
Another reason for a dash cam.
Source on speeding cameras working for anything other than revenue generation?
If that were the case, they would be hidden.
They are a deterrent for speeding most of all.
The ones around here, everyone just slows down getting to that intersection, and then picks up speed again after crossing through
That’s the main purpose of that cams. Slow drivers on strategic spots that have more chances of accidents.
That does make sense. Never thought of it that way.
In the UK (Where the op picture is) the police cannot collect the revenue from cameras and other fines. It all goes to the gov so the cops have zero financial incentive to install speed cameras.
deleted by creator
Yes but they get the same amount regardless of the fines. The police see no direct financial connection.
deleted by creator
More crashes and deaths means less cars and people.
Double win for the environment.
Environmentalists should be encouraging speeding and drink driving.
I have a treat for you
Leans into the window
You think y’all can get this thing home?
I dunno if you’ve tried, but I’m here to tell ya, cobble stone streets will absolutely stop speeding really quick.
Nope, just observed it on this weekend on a cobble stone street in very bad condition. It was a 30 km/h zone and other drivers where more about 50.
While I, who only had a driver’s license for 3 months, tried not to break the suspension of my car (obviously unfounded).
So it doesn’t work because your sample size = 1?
How is this not “fuck the police” it’s a camera, controlled by the police, to surveil people.
It only surveils idiots who are speeding.
Why is this not fuvk people who put pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers in danger
How do cameras make any difference?
Traffic cameras ARE the police…
Speed traps are just a tool to further monetize and rent seek car culture in the absence of public transit.
You can, in fact, hate both cars and infrastructure that exists solely to make using a car more expensive.
the most viable alternative to traffic stops
I have never heard of a town that reduced the size of its police force after installing a speed trap.
They do not exist solely to collect revenue, although they certainly do that as well. They have been proven time and again to reduce speeding and fatalities, as other commenters in this thread have pointed out. As far as using traffic cameras to reduce police forces, I haven’t been able to find that exactly, but there are plenty of examples of deploying traffic cameras to work around a shortage of officers which works out to the same thing.
You know what else would reduce police forces? Eliminating car traffic entirely.
Cops spend the most time on ordinary traffic stops.
Shitposts!? On MY shitposting community!?? It’s more likely than you think!
Lemmy users can believe in different things. We need differing opinions or it just stifles a website.
LaLuzDelSol (on Lemmy): thinks Lemmy is one person
Why do I keep talking to myself and contradicting every other thing I say?
(Taking this to its logical conclusion, in case I forget why I wrote this when I read it later and feel like arguing with myself about it)
I generalize ofc but those are definitely the prevailing viewpoints, which seem contradictory.
Better rule: when someone sabotaged surveillance state infrastructure, don’t post footage of them doing it
Lemmy try not to post crimes challenge - impossible. Granted, as far as crimes go, this one seems innocuous enough, but still.
I’ve been told repeatedly on c/piracy that lemmy is just too small to attract the attention of law enforcement and three-letter agencies
Paradoxically, I’ve also been told that lemmy is rife with state-sponsored troll farms, so…?
Those are different kinds of lemmings
Narrowing roads and making them less straight also lowers speeding
For reasonable people yes, but those that go 30km/h over the speed limit every time don’t care and will always drive as fast as possible in those sections. I once met a guy who claimed to know down to the exact last km/h how fast he could drive until the car lost control in every single curve of a quite curvy road segment. Is it save to drive like that? Absolutely fucking not. Does he car(e)? Also absolutely fucking not.
Speed cameras also won’t stop someone like that. Though they might take nice pictures of the wreck.
People like that are gonna cause accidents anyways.
Studies have shown that accidents are more likely to be severe/fatal on wide, straight roads.
The absolute entitlement.
Edit: For those not wanting to read through this whole thing, speed cameras have been shown objectively in a systematic analysis of 35 studies to reduce traffic injuries and deaths.
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
Edit 2: That being said, speed cams are objectively helpful aren’t the sole tool we should be using. Traffic calming is enormously beneficial and cost-effective for making places with roads safer for drivers and pedestrians.
Is it the cars, or is it police using laws as revenue generators that intentionally affect the poor disproportionately?
You are allowed to drive the speed limit, even if you’re poor 😇
Not if the speed camera runs your plates to determine you’re poor and notifies the police of an inbound precariat, letting them use their psychokinesis to entrap you into speeding.
Would it generate revenue if people didn’t feel so entitled to put others’ lives in greater jeopardy to get to their destination 30 seconds faster? No? Not speeding is the easiest thing in the world; it’s an objective number not to exceed that you directly control and that your car tells you in real time, but at least in the US, drivers are in an arms race to see what kind of bullshit they can get away with, making cops less likely to pull them over. This means that when the average driver can – without warning and with precision – be dinged for speeding, they throw a tantrum about it and act like they’ve been victimized.
Ticketing does disproportionately affect the poor, and we should reform ticketing to change based on income, but can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the people doing this are doing it because they’re protesting socioeconomic injustice? Or because they’re entitled drivers who want to be able to speed with impunity? It’s the drivers here being entitled and thinking that they’re above the law. Personal vehicles are a privilege, not a right, but drivers don’t treat it like one. Over 100 people per day die to motor vehicle crashes in the US alone, and kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity; if drivers don’t like speed limits, they’re more than welcome to stay off the streets and stop thinking their personal convenience trumps people’s right to life.
These cameras do nothing to improve safety. There is no meaningful scientific evidence that shows any difference improvement in safety.
Their only value is socioeconomic harm.
“after accounting for MVC increases in the control segment we found that neither camera placement nor removal had an independent impact on MVCs. In other words, speed cameras did not statistically contribute to an increase or decrease in the number of MVC.”
Your own study links to a Cochrane systematic review which states the following:
Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
You linked a study that took place along a single 26-mile stretch of road in Arizona, and while it does some good toward controlling for confounding variables, a single, highly localized study simply isn’t as robust as a Cochrane systematic review.
Moreover, the study you link focuses on the number of collisions, while the Cochrane review focuses on injuries and deaths. What we were talking about before was – say it with me – injuries and deaths because of entitled, speeding drivers.
It focused on the Arizona study because that was the only one out of the 35 that actually measured Motor Vehicle Collisions. The rest did not even attempt it in any controlled manner.
As stated, there are no meaningful studies that these cameras reduce accidents.
So it sounds to me like you’re not disputing the fact that they have a protective effect against injury and death. Maybe you should clarify that in your prior comment if that’s how you feel.
I am in fact stating that there is no proof that they do anything to reduce collusions or deaths. I stated in my first comment that such proof does not exist.
These cameras are only deployed to generate revenue. There is no scientific basis for improved safety.
A recent Cochrane review examining 35 studies investigating the effect of speed cameras on speed and collisions concluded that although the quality of the studies was moderate at best, the consistency of all studies to report a positive reduction in either speed or collisions was impressive
That’s 35 for and one against, due to heavily manipulating no less than 5 different variables, in order to force themselves to have to conclude that speed cameras don’t improve safety.
Read your links folks!
so the camera can’t be wrong? now someone has to go to traffic court if they want to fight it over a camera that’s 1 second off or uncalibrated?
Boy, I can just feel the salt from a past speeding ticket coming from this comment.
Maybe stop being a shitty driver who feels entitled to break traffic laws designed to keep people safe from entitled, careless idiots in their two-tonne metal box. 💀 You’re whining elsewhere in the thread about a 37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers), so you’re not even complaining about accuracy so much as how much illegal driving you think you should be able to get away with. Speed limits are already across the board much higher than they should be to cater to cars; if you don’t feel like you’re competent enough to do something as trivial as stay exactly the speed limit when they’re already unfairly high in your favor, then it’s a limit for a reason: you can go a mph or two slower than it, and you won’t, like, die or anything.
37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers)
LMAO
you’re basing this all off of people breaking the law completely ignoring the fact that police ABUSE the FUCK out of people for nothing. don’t act all high and mighty like you never do anything wrong.
- I’ve never gotten a speeding ticket or pulled over for speeding.
- I don’t speed.
I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I’m sorry about your past speeding ticket(s). I hope you can someday find the strength to move on and become a more mindful driver.
-
if you drive at the speed limit you won’t have a problem
-
the speed camera will be well signposted (car on the left so this is the UK) while it’s not a legal requirement that they have signposts I’ve never come across a fixed camera that isn’t
-
If you don’t break the law you won’t have a problem
-
the camera is painted bright yellow for visibility
-
once again for the those at the back who are hard of thinking: don’t speed and you won’t get fined
-
usually for first time offences if you’re just a bit over the limit you’ll get the option of a speed awareness course.
-
You’ve probably come to expect odd numbered points to tell you to not break the law by now, so I’ll mix it up: if you get caught breaking the law and get a slap on the wrist, don’t keep breaking the law.
I do agree though that the fining structure should be reformed, it should be a percentage of income with some provision in place so the super rich can’t get out of paying their appropriate share too.
- If you don’t break the law you won’t have a problem
this MF is a bootlicker if I’ve ever seen one.
there are a million ways a cop would fuck you over, primarily being “not white” or looking at them wrong, NOTHING to do with law.
I’ll give the UK a break as they’re not nearly as bad as the US, but cops are not your friends and that sentence quotes is a joke.
“if you got nothing to hide, let me search your car”
fuck no.
No. This is a safety thing. This is multiple tons moving at speed. This gets regulated.
I don’t think anyone has ever received a speeding fine from a speed camera who was going at the speed limit.
Stop being a cunt and think of others road safety.
The first two are newsworthy because of their exceptionality. Thousands of cameras two issues.
The third link points 100% away from the argument that it’s just to get revenue. If it were they would be actively decreasing the amount of dropped fines. They’d be making sure cameras were calibrated correctly (as if they’re not the court would throw out) and that they weren’t
unable to send tickets to motorists in the post within the allotted time before they are no longer valid
and that they wouldn’t suffer from a
lack of resources to bring cases to court
how about not being so dense and understand that governments can be wrong and abuse innocent people with no real recourse?
I don’t know what the rules are in the USA but over here you should be stopping on amber, not blasting through.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic
you don’t have to blast through, but there are times when you can’t stop, and there are expected time frames between yellow to red depending on the speed limit no that street and if the city is reducing that time, when the rest of the nation knows what it should be, that should be 100% criminal charges to whoever decided to do that.
-
People trying to argue with this point, but the point is that if the punishment for a crime is fine, then the crime only punishes the poor.
I’m cool with impounding cars and putting drivers in jail.
That’s an issue yes, but objectively America needs to slow down. Accidents above 70 have a sharply increased chance of death. Nobody needs to be doing more than 65. Electric cars also use a lot more energy and tire material to go above 65 and gas cars are using more gas to do it. This generally happens because in order to maintain those speeds they’re constantly accelerating and braking around other cars.
I’m sorry driving isn’t fun, it was never meant to be once we obliterated mass transit in the US. It’s meant to get you to the destination, preferably safely.
I’m sorry driving isn’t fun, it was never meant to be once we obliterated mass transit in the US. It’s meant to get you to the destination, preferably safely.
You’ve never been in a fun car on a fun twisty back road. This is what driving should be, as we should not be dependent on driving to get everywhere.
Oh I have. I used to ride motorcycles and there’s no better way to feel out those roads, I’ve been off-road too.
But the reality is it is the main form of transportation and it is not optional for most Americans. Which means we have a duty to make it as safe as possible. Yeah that also means boring. We’ve largely let capitalism and personal preference rule the day and motor vehicle accidents are the largest non-disease cause of death because of it.
And before anyone gets all up in arms about the every day person knowing a ton of regulations, this should all be taken care of on the manufacturer and seller side of things. The size requirements for commercial licenses should come right down to invalidating future purchases of giant pickup trucks, you know the ones, so big they can’t park properly and an M1A2 tank has better visibility. Speed governors should prevent going over 80mph. Headlights should have a max capacity and a thermal camera should be standard to make night driving clear as day.
But the biggest thing by far is we need to make a project of mass transit such that driving becomes a profession and a hobby, not the main means of transportation. If we can get commuters and road trippers off the road then motor vehicle accident deaths will fall dramatically.
There are no speed limits on German motorways yet the death and accident rate is not higher that in their neighbours’ countries. Go figure.
The statistic here isn’t accidents. It’s fatalities in accidents at X speed. Germans aren’t driving cars that are any safer than the rest of Europe. If they get into an accident at 70mph or higher then their chance of death is also sharply increased.
The big difference between German roads and American ones is Germans can generally opt out by taking a train. Americans cannot.
Are you a little bit slow? You surely must grasp the concept that for it to be a fatality, an accident must happen first?
So it doesn’t matter that the accidents that do happen are more deadly? As long as there are less over all?
Why can’t we have less accidents and less death?
So, are you a little bit slow?
This is the most Lemmy thread ever. If only my instance hadn’t blocked hexbear. ❤️❤️❤️
I’m glad I could help to make your day just a bit more magical. 🎆🎇✨
Yeah, can you imagine? Cars actually driving below speed limits and not risking everyone’s lives? Good thing this buddy makes side we can all speed like idiots instt
If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at… Realistically, people are going to drive the speed that feels safe for that road, and a speed camera is just going to disproportionately punish people without the money to pay the fines.
Make roads that are designed for the speed you want people to drive at, not wide open expanses that give no actual reason to slow down.
If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at
They do. They objectively do. How are there so many people all over this thread just confidently asserting complete, disprovable bullshit, and why is it getting upvoted? From the Cochrane systematic review:
Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.
Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.
Interesting. Mostly what I see is people slam on their brakes near the camera, then take off again after it.
My theory: There’s so little enforcement of the traffic laws here, they might as well not exist. You’re almost certain NOT to get caught, so people will do whatever they want and will practically always get away with it. I don’t really want to argue for more cops, but when I’ve driven in areas with more traffic enforcement and visible police presence, people tend to drive much more sedately.
I drive and ride bicycle, and I would LOVE if the cops came riding with me some time. I see some of them doing the 100 mile ride for charity in our county, so I know they have people on the force who ride fairly seriously. Join one of our regular group rides wearing cycling clothes (not police gear), get another cop stationed ahead in a car or motorcycle…and start pulling over some people who buzz us or roll coal. Word would get out very quickly.
For me personally, I think more cops isn’t the ideal solution. Instead, I think traffic calming measures should be introduced to make drivers feel less safe if they choose to speed.
Better enforcement is 100% necessary, and I think speed cams can be a good way to prevent dangerous driving through the threat of enforcement. That said, I also think in terms of cost efficiency that direct preventative measures such as speed cushions, bollards, trees, medians, sidewalk extensions, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. will be more cost-effective to some point than and should be used in conjunction with speed cams.
I can see those kinds of things working in or near cities, but out where I am - fairly rural - there’s just too many miles of road to install a bunch of speed humps or similar things. It would take a monumental amount of money. They don’t even have shoulders on most of the roads. I admit even I speed when I’m driving them, although I’ll slow down for bends in the road so as not to clobber a deer, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. that might be lurking out of sight.
(I got into a fun argument here on Lemmy a few months back with someone who insisted horse and buggies should have lights, and I was like, “What happens when you come around the bend too fast and there’s a tree laying in the road?” He just couldn’t accept the problem is the driver, not the horse and buggy. Basically, that’s what’s wrong with drivers in the US: We, as a group, have a bizarre expectation that things will always go to plan.)
I’m also nervous about these solutions for another reason - I’ve seen towns install those kinds of calming measures in a way that hurts cyclists. In one example, they extended the curbs out to the lane, which does slow down traffic - but it forces cyclists who could previously ride on the shoulder into the lane, thereby further enraging drivers. I had one asshole pass me in that very narrow section some years ago, so now I make sure to ride in the middle of it, so they’d actually have to hit me. They won’t do that because they don’t want to damage their precious car, so I’m safe.
And I say this as someone that lives in an area that’s actually pretty good for cycling, that is, most drivers are actually pretty good about passing safely and all that.
Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.
I’d be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.
Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn’t for another.
Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you’re just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can’t use the area but bikes can.
My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.
Fatalities are typically more common in rural areas (proportional to population). Likely because of higher speed roads and higher drink driving rates in rural areas. And maybe due to truck drivers and people driving long distances driving sleep deprived.
I would love to see a more recent study. Safety tends to be a weird subject, particularly the treadmill of introducing safety features, which means more drivers drive unsafely because safety features give an appearance of safety.
Overall, I still stand by what I said outside of maybe the very first sentence. Even if they DO slow traffic, there are vastly better ways that don’t have a disproportionate impact.
My city started putting in speed cushions at roads that were constantly over-traveled. Neighborhoods that would see increased traffic during rush hour, for instance. They’re aggressive, you have to go BELOW the speed limit to safely drive the route. Those roads see SIGNIFICANTLY less traffic, and the traffic that is there is slower.
Fines just don’t work to deter your average driver, or at least not as much as physics does.
Oh yeah, just to be clear, I’m a massive fan of urbanist channels like NJB and absolutely stan the shit out of traffic calming measures. Give me more trees on the sides of the road to make it feel narrower. Give me speed humps. Give me medians. Give me sidewalk extensions. Give me roundabouts. Inject that shit into my veins. I see speed cameras as just one tool in an arsenal to create safer driving conditions, and mercifully, it seems like the US is starting to warm up to those.
I’m pretty sure we’re 100% on the same page here as far as traffic calming measures go, and I think we’d both agree too that if there are fines, they need to be adjusted to account for income. (Here’s an upvote by the way to counteract that downvote; this is one of like two reasonable takes I’ve seen in this thread against speed cameras.)
I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they’re implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can’t be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren’t revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.
I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It’s HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it’s subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.
From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.
Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that’s going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it’s something.
I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates.
I suspect many cars on the road can’t even be driven safely at that speed, and then you have to account for the driving ability of the average person.
You’d have more cases where there are high speed differentials too with some only going 60mph, and others going 100mph, increasing the amount of passing.
The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you’re doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you’re always going to have dumbasses.
Germany would like a word 🙄
((yeah it seems like there’s a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))
Traffic jams are caused by speedcameras because those who are speeding hit the fucking break paddle as hard as i want to slap you for saying bullshit
I’m not sure what I said to make you reply about traffic jams? Want to elaborate?
That’s not true. They are not traveling at safe speeds. Crashes over 70 mph have a sharply increased risk of fatality. Yet people routinely choose to go faster. They even choose to bully people who won’t go faster on 65 mph roads.
Rules are put in place for a reason, but people treat speeding like an oopsie daisy because that’s how the law treats it. We need more speed enforcement and tougher penalties. Not less. This is an area where people’s feelings are very very wrong.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.
The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren’t able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying “hey! Slow down or pay the toll!”
We can’t do that for most of the roads. We really do just need more traffic cops, tougher penalties, and more cameras. Part of the reason people speed is because getting caught is like getting struck by lightning. I’ve seen people do 80 right by a cop and the cop doesn’t stop them. The level of enforcement is not commensurate with the safety risk.
And as long as the penalty is fines, it’s literally “pay the toll to go fast”. At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can’t just say “ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail.” That’ll do way more harm than good.
Well there’s three ways to fix that. A state max over which it’s a criminal offense and you go away in handcuffs. A sliding fine that hits for percentage of income. And making all of the penalties criminal. Make it an actual crime for which you have to be taken to jail, booked, and arraigned. Make sure to write in language extending the liability to employers for chauffeurs.
people treat speeding like an oopsie daisy
And often even this is too generous. Most drivers I’ve seen in the US treat speeding like a calculated risk that they feel out over time. They will with an unambiguous understanding of what the speed limit is choose to not just exceed it, but to actively target a speed that’s (usually 5 mph or 8 kph) over it.
Honestly not even that a lot of the time. Speeding is their god given right and speed limits are just freedom stealing commie bullshit, so it’s actually a good thing that they speed.
That’s because eons ago a judge determined the error rate for speedometers and radar guns was around 10 mph and we couldn’t punish people for something they don’t realize they’re doing.
Completely rushing past the fact that not realizing your speed is itself a giant red flag.
And that has absolutely contributed to the sense of entitlement to speed.
What the hell this is new, so road safety was created to hinder the poor? Just drive below the speed limit and stop making stupid excuses
I didn’t say it was created to hinder the poor.
I said fines DISPROPORTIONATELY PUNISH THE POOR.
If you have $1000, a $200 fine is 20% of your money.
If you have $2,000,000 a fine of $200 is . 0001% of your money, basically nothing.
This means that, relative to their money, a poorer person hurts more from the same fine. This is a BAD IDEA for enforcing rules everyone is supposed to follow. Essentially, we’re encouraging people to drive slow, unless they can pay the toll for speeding.
There are ways to mitigate this - sliding scale fines, for instance. I personally don’t like fines as punishments in general, though. I’d rather use neutral traffic calming features, that always invariably impact people who use the route the same, and make it a criminal offense to drive recklessly, akin to drunk driving.
Finland have it sorted:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine
“A multimillionaire businessman has been hit with one of the world’s highest speeding fines – €121,000 (£104,000) – for driving 30km/h (18.6mph) over the limit in Finland, where tickets are calculated as a percentage of the offender’s income.”
I don’t disagree it’s disproportionate. But you know how rich and poor can avoid fines? Just fucking respect the limits
People should follow the law because it benefits everyone not because they want to avoid a fine
I address all of this in other areas in this thread. I don’t feel like rehashing it with you, given your unwarranted aggression out of the gate. If you want to read some actual rebuttal, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your life.
Sorry if it sounded aggressive. This topic hits close because I have at least 2 very close friends that continuously ignore speed limits and no argument dissuades them of the “speed limits are a way of controlling the people, and fines are just for the police to earn money” mindset, et al. And I feel they’ll have a nasty accident one day
Do you think speed cameras will slow them down? Or do you think they’ll just figure out how to get away with it? When my city put in speed cameras everywhere, it didn’t slow me down. After the first one (which was a surprise btw- same route I drove to work every day, but after they put in the speed camera, the speed limit was reduced by 10mph mysteriously…) I researched the fuck out of the topic and found
A: they can’t act on a mailed ticket unless you voluntarily respond (so I didn’t) or it’s delivered by a process server (which costs money, and the local government isn’t going to bother when there are plenty of pigeons that don’t know better)
B: they have to be able to identify the driver- as in see your face. There was a famous case of a guy wearing various zoo animal masks, and I have a couple pictures of me in a cheap Spartan mask doing 90 in a 65 that never went anywhere.
C: even if they serve you, and even if your face is plainly visible, it may still be worth a shot going to court. I did the one time one was properly served, which was another surprise one, not one of the times I was taunting them. It was another case of the speed limit being temporarily reduced, this time for construction - except the speed camera had been set up after the end of the construction zone, and I had just gotten on the highway, there was no signage indicating the construction zone or the reduced speed between the on ramp and the camera, and again it was a familiar area where I knew the limit was 65 normally… Anywho, tangent. I went to court, and I got to see which arguments worked and which didn’t. It was pretty comical, one woman was trying to argue that she didn’t know the speed limit had dropped, but she had been clocked at 79- the judge yelled at her “even if you thought it was 65, you still would have been going nearly 15 over! Pay the fine and get out!” Anywho, one thing I noticed was they always gave the measurements of how far the speed camera was after the speed limit sign, so that was going to be my angle- I would just ask how far that was from the on ramp- but I didn’t get the chance. They got to me, and the prosecutor said he didn’t have the evidence to pursue my case, so he moved for dismissal. No further explanation.
So that’s just what works in my jurisdiction, it’s likely other places close some of those loopholes, but introduce some of their own. And you can bet assholes like me will be better at figuring it out and will overall pay less in fines than suckers like you that just get caught by surprise once in a great while. Is that fair?
Oh I agree with that, I’m just saying that bthese types that do these things aren’t doing it for the principle of it, they do it because they’re assholes that want to speed
If speed cameras are less biased than humans when issuing tickets, I see them as a fairer method of speed enforcement. Also safer for BIPOC individuals to receive a ticket in the mail, as opposed to a roadside traffic stop.
I don’t disagree, but I also think speeding is the least dangerous thing that happens on the road.
Where are the cameras catching tailgaters, people who don’t signal, people cutting others off, people cruising in the left and not passing, people blatantly running stop signs, people texting or doing makeup?
These behaviors are all far more dangerous.
Speeding is a psychological problem. You can’t take a four-lane, straight, flat, state highwayswith few cross-roads, and all of a sudden it’s a 20MPH zone because there’s a high school on it (and an elevated crosswalk at that), then throw a camera on it and make a money generating machine.
I mean, you can…Rhode Island does it. At least in the poorer neighborhoods. They don’t do it in the nice neighborhoods (well, most of them…I guess Blackstone Blvd is like the one exception). But it’s not really doing anything but pissing people off.
Maybe just…don’t build the highschool on a four-lane, flat, straight state highway with few cross-roads? Ain’t nobody living in walking distance of it anyway.
You’re right that streets should be designed such that low speeds feel inevitable and not something you have to think about, and that they should serve one purpose and not two (no stroads). And highways should completely bypass cities, because the idea that they should cut through them is just absurd.
Where are the cameras catching tailgaters, people who don’t signal, people cutting others off, people cruising in the left and not passing, people blatantly running stop signs, people texting or doing makeup?
The technology to do this is more challenging then detecting speeding. Red-light cameras are also very common, because they are relatively easy to implement. I believe there is some tech for texting while driving at least, but I’m not sure how automated it is.
Force = Mass times Acceleration.
and the acceleration of a collision is measured in split seconds, so the acceleration is going to be way higher than your velocity suggests.
As pointed out already, acceleration here is massive, as collision takes split seconds.
A more useful formula is: F=m*∆V^2 /2, where F is the force, m is mass, ∆V is speed difference (essentially your entire speed if you’re gonna hit the wall, and that’s very likely).
Notice that speed in this formula is squared, so doubling the speed results in four times the impact.
22% higher speed leads to 50% higher impact.
41% higher speed doubles the impact energy.
Etc. etc.
Also, mass of your car, even though it’s not squared, impacts the result greatly. Twice as heavy car will exert twice the energy at the same speed.
Sure. But speeding doesn’t cause collisons nearly to the level of any of the other things.
Going slow is a great way to reduce damage once a collision has occurred. Artificially slowing down roads (by throwing up a camera and a sign and nothing more) doesn’t do shit to prevent collisions in the first place. It might slow down the road. It might make someone panic and jump on their brakes to avoid a ticket. It might get people paying closer attention to their speedometer than to the crosswalk up ahead.
Put another way, you’re referencing the second law. Second law doesn’t matter until the first law is broke. Don’t act upon an object, won’t be no actions upon another object.
Going the posted speed limit is not going slow.
Speed is a leading factor in collisions resulting in serious injuries and death.
Where I live, going the speed limit gets you run off the road. I’m not even exaggerating.
If only there was a way to remotely monitor and cite speeders
They tried that for a few years. People went to court to challenge them, overwhelmed the court system, and made it not cost effective to pursue people.
people cruising in the left
This is a camera on a single lane road in the UK. They should be driving on the left.
You sure showed them…
It’s less a problem with racial profiling and more a problem with it being a poverty-tax.
Enforcing a flat-rate fee structure with speed cameras disproportionately hurts low-income drivers (who are already economically unstable), and allocating state/city funding toward road maintenance instead of public transit infrastructure pushes people into a loop of auto costs-> traffic fines -> loss of work -> more financial insecurity, ect.
True enough: reducing officer interactions is a good thing, but those cops end up spending that saved time escalating other non-violent interactions instead. If that’s your goal, you should be de-funding and reforming law enforcement, not automating fine collection.
Well said. My biggest issue is tickets funding road maintance, rather than traffic calming and transit. But flat-rate is also a big issue.
All true. It could be a positive step but very small change by itself. Police are one part of criminal justice system that need massive reform.
Reminds me of a past mayor of the city I live in. One of his talking points was too get rid of the speeding cameras in the city. He came into office and did a photo op covering the first camera. A few weeks later his son died due to an accident caused by wreckless speeding driver in City center.
Speeding cameras wouldn’t have changed that.
“There is little evidence” that automated traffic enforcement is an effective tool at either “improving traffic safety [or] limiting violent interactions between law enforcement and drivers during minor traffic stops … when enforcement is predicated simply on the assessment of financial sanctions," the group Fines and Fees Justice Center argued in its report.
Not to mention, many cameras are hidden and create false positives. They get mailed tickets and have to spend a day in court.
caused by wreckless speeding driver
The driver may have been reckless (irresponsible), but the incident was not wreckless (lacking a wreck)
Did it convince him to change his mind on that his policy on the cameras? Or did he just continue on?
That’s sad.
Certainly not an accident. That was a entirely preventable collision
Looks like they should do the cameras in a different order.
fuck cars
Let’s destroy capitalism with bikes! (And ebikes for long distances)
(and motorbikes for even longer distances, and ca… wait)
And buses and trains for even longer distances!!
Controversal take: Ebikes are capitalismized bikes.
One could enhance it into an art installation with thermite.
maybe their 7-11 doesn’t sell it
Why buy what you can easily make at home?
90s take
It’s well in the shade already.
Just wait until the turtle turns a little.
Who took the picture?
The speedcam cam!As in a camera that catches people for speeding? Sounds like some bootlicker behavior if you ask me
That is a really confusing perspective
