You must log in or register to comment.
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?
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!
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.
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.
((yeah it seems like there’s a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
That’s sad.
Did it convince him to change his mind on that his policy on the cameras? Or did he just continue on?
Certainly not an accident. That was a entirely preventable collision
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.
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!!
One could enhance it into an art installation with thermite.
It’s well in the shade already.
Just wait until the turtle turns a little.
90s take
That is a really confusing perspective
