• ronflex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 minutes ago

    As in a camera that catches people for speeding? Sounds like some bootlicker behavior if you ask me

    • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Is it the cars, or is it police using laws as revenue generators that intentionally affect the poor disproportionately?

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          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.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • Jarvis2323@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.”

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3861844/#:~:text=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%2C speed cameras did not statistically contribute to an increase or decrease in the number of mvc.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            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.

            • Jarvis2323@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              5 hours ago

              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.

              • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 hours ago

                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.

                • Jarvis2323@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  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.

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            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!

        • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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?

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 hours ago
        1. if you drive at the speed limit you won’t have a problem

        2. 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

        3. If you don’t break the law you won’t have a problem

        4. the camera is painted bright yellow for visibility

        5. once again for the those at the back who are hard of thinking: don’t speed and you won’t get fined

        6. usually for first time offences if you’re just a bit over the limit you’ll get the option of a speed awareness course.

        7. 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.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

          • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 minutes ago

            This is such a bland nothingburger of an argument. Don’t follow the law because…sometimes police give speeding tickets to people who weren’t speeding?

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        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.

          • then_three_more@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            44 minutes ago

            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.

            • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 minutes ago

              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.

              • then_three_more@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 minutes ago

                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.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 minutes ago

        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?”

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        60 minutes ago

        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.