There you go little guy

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.
- 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?
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.
- Maybe just drive the speed limit?
- 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 litterally demonstrably do. Either actually engage your brain and look things up instead of parroting nonsense or take your bullshit back to reddit.
- 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%.
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20927736/

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.
- Traffic Cameras can and do reduce speeding if implemented properly
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- https://www.cochrane.org/CD004607/INJ_do-speed-cameras-reduce-road-traffic-crashes-injuries-and-deaths
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20927736/
- https://www.heraldnet.com/news/after-traffic-cameras-went-in-everett-saw-70-decrease-in-speeding/
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
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).
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.
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.

!fuckcars@lemmy.world

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 😇
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- people cruising in the left
  This is a camera on a single lane road in the UK. They should be driving on the left.
- Force = Mass times Acceleration.
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.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/03/20/is-automated-enforcement-making-u-s-cities-safer-or-just-raising-revenue
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)
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

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)
- Controversal take: Ebikes are capitalismized bikes.