And don’t like being punished. How about I get a tax break if I don’t speed, rather than getting my money siphoned because I’m running late? No? Then I’m gonna remain happy that we haven’t implemented these where I live.
Using traffic fines to “help plug the hole in the city budget” creates a perverse incentive to create arbitrary traffic rules with which to fine people that don’t actually increase traffic safety, and quite often decrease traffic safety by forcing drivers to focus on potential fines instead of on driving safely.
Highway robbery committed by the government, in other words.
How does forcing drivers to focus on the speed they’re driving decrease safety? They only decrease safety if and only if someone speeding slams on the break - in which case there’s an increase in safety for non-car drivers due to slower cars.
The cameras should be everywhere because people will continue to ignore safety rules to reach their destination 10 seconds earlier for all eternity.
How dies forcing drivers to focus in the speed they’re driving decrease safety?
The camera demands I drive at a speed different from everyone else. That is unsafe.
Also, I have to worry about inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by 1mph for a few seconds and getting a surprise fine despite my efforts to avoid it. That’s a dangerous distraction.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a way for cities to spend less money on highway patrols and make more money on surprise fines. Safety’s got nothing to do with it. It’s all about the money.
in which case there’s an increase in safety for non-car drivers due to slower cars.
Are you insinuating that you’re okay with people being injured or killed, as long as they happen to be inside a vehicle at the time? You hate motorists that much? That’s messed up.
[It’s unsafe to] drive at a speed different from everybody else.
For whom is it unsafe? Certainly not for children on the road. Besides, if everyone was speeding to such an extent that abiding by the speed limit causes accidents, the fines need to be much bigger. The most effective fines are those based on income, don’t you agree?
I have to worry about inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by 1mph for a few seconds.
No you don’t? Firstly, in countries caring about safety, your speedometer’s indicated speed is never less than your actual speed. Since manufacturers would be fined even for a -1% difference, all speedometers show a slightly higher speed compared to your actual speed.
Secondly, where I’m from, speeding cameras will not be set off for speeding 1 mph. Their tolerance is 3 kph for speeds lower than 100 kph and 3% for speeds higher than 100 kph.
Those simple adjustments make you not check your speed constantly. In a 30 kph zone you will probably not get a ticket even if your speedometer shows 35 kph.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a way for cities to spend less money on highway patrols.
What even is the purpose of highway patrols? They’re dangerous and ineffective because you’d need cops everwhere. And since cops already have a bias towards minorities, not everyone is affected the same way. Speeding cameras do not discriminate, do not kill and do not waste money which could be spend to improve the city.
Speeding cameras are the safest and single most effective method of forcing drivers to abide by the laws. Source
Most signifcant result:
Speed cameras alone were associated with a 19% reduction in the likelihood that a crash resulted in an incapacitating or fatal injury
Keep in mind the study focuses on a school zone. Who do you think were the ones being injured?
Are you insinuating that you’re okay with people being injured or killed, as long as they happen to be inside a vehicle at the time?
Say there are n crashes at equal speeds, where a is the number of crashes between 2 or more vehicles and b is the number of crashes between vehicles and bicyclists or pedistrians and n = a + b. Let’s assume n was constant.
What results in less death and injury: a < b or a > b?
If it’s generating that many fines, it’s most likely trapping unsuspecting people who are driving normally. Most drivers are neither rich nor impatient.
Kinda wish they’d put up more of those. Encourage safer behaviour on the streets and help plug the hole in the city budget.
Voters really dislike them because voters like to speed
And don’t like being punished. How about I get a tax break if I don’t speed, rather than getting my money siphoned because I’m running late? No? Then I’m gonna remain happy that we haven’t implemented these where I live.
“I’m running late, everyone else fuck off!”
Using traffic fines to “help plug the hole in the city budget” creates a perverse incentive to create arbitrary traffic rules with which to fine people that don’t actually increase traffic safety, and quite often decrease traffic safety by forcing drivers to focus on potential fines instead of on driving safely.
Highway robbery committed by the government, in other words.
How does forcing drivers to focus on the speed they’re driving decrease safety? They only decrease safety if and only if someone speeding slams on the break - in which case there’s an increase in safety for non-car drivers due to slower cars.
The cameras should be everywhere because people will continue to ignore safety rules to reach their destination 10 seconds earlier for all eternity.
The camera demands I drive at a speed different from everyone else. That is unsafe.
Also, I have to worry about inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by 1mph for a few seconds and getting a surprise fine despite my efforts to avoid it. That’s a dangerous distraction.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a way for cities to spend less money on highway patrols and make more money on surprise fines. Safety’s got nothing to do with it. It’s all about the money.
Are you insinuating that you’re okay with people being injured or killed, as long as they happen to be inside a vehicle at the time? You hate motorists that much? That’s messed up.
For whom is it unsafe? Certainly not for children on the road. Besides, if everyone was speeding to such an extent that abiding by the speed limit causes accidents, the fines need to be much bigger. The most effective fines are those based on income, don’t you agree?
No you don’t? Firstly, in countries caring about safety, your speedometer’s indicated speed is never less than your actual speed. Since manufacturers would be fined even for a -1% difference, all speedometers show a slightly higher speed compared to your actual speed.
Secondly, where I’m from, speeding cameras will not be set off for speeding 1 mph. Their tolerance is 3 kph for speeds lower than 100 kph and 3% for speeds higher than 100 kph.
Those simple adjustments make you not check your speed constantly. In a 30 kph zone you will probably not get a ticket even if your speedometer shows 35 kph.
What even is the purpose of highway patrols? They’re dangerous and ineffective because you’d need cops everwhere. And since cops already have a bias towards minorities, not everyone is affected the same way. Speeding cameras do not discriminate, do not kill and do not waste money which could be spend to improve the city.
Speeding cameras are the safest and single most effective method of forcing drivers to abide by the laws. Source
Most signifcant result:
Keep in mind the study focuses on a school zone. Who do you think were the ones being injured?
Say there are
ncrashes at equal speeds, whereais the number of crashes between 2 or more vehicles andbis the number of crashes between vehicles and bicyclists or pedistrians andn = a + b. Let’s assumenwas constant. What results in less death and injury:a < bora > b?I’d consider it a toll road for rich and impatient people.
If it’s generating that many fines, it’s most likely trapping unsuspecting people who are driving normally. Most drivers are neither rich nor impatient.