• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • then_three_more@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you’re going to go back on the death (and injury) part now that it has been pointed out that the study you linked was only about the collisions. And itself points research that shows that there is a reduction in death (and injury).

        Right?

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The authors of the systematic review had no reservations in asserting that the cameras lowered injuries and deaths, so how do they not affect safety? Do the cameras emit cancer-causing 5G beams or something that bring the number of injuries and deaths back into equillibrium?