Speed cameras also unfairly penalize gig workers who are driving all day and driving on unfamiliar streets all the time. The fines imposed for speeding are flat, not based on income, so they disproportionately affect lower income people of all sorts.
This is a life-saving intervention that is empirically proven to save lives. The lives of pedestrians are more important than the income of gig workers. Pedestrians are an even more disadvantaged and vulnerable class than gig drivers.
It’s a tiny problem, we can accept that it is a bit regressive and adjust taxes elsewhere to compensate. For this, I should die? Sort it out, bud.
The point isn’t to punish people, it’s to keep people un-killed. If speed cameras don’t work on 2% because they are wealthy sociopaths, that’s not a reason to abandon the intervention that has been clearly proven to work at the intended purpose of keeping people from getting killed. This is such a bizarre objection. Perhaps it is a reflex earned from decades of looking for how the poor get screwed and that’s admirable but it kind of looks like looking for any excuse not to have to slow down.
Do you have evidence that speed cameras with fines are clearly proven to “keep people from getting killed” because I’m pretty sure their primary purpose is revenue generation.
Edit: looking into it, it seems the majority of the available data generally indicates a reduction in collisions and fatalities but apparently the methodology across the various studies has been pretty inconsistent so there’s no hard numbers. But apparently they range from no reduction at all to 70 percent from my glancing at the data, apparently how many cameras how far apart and how far from the high traffic incident area are the main determining factors in reducing accidents. I may have overlooked it but I didn’t actually see anywhere that shows the speed reduction after camera introduction though.
When speed cameras were first introduced they led to an uptick in accidents because people would brake suddenly when they saw the camera and get rear ended. This still happens but thought out implementation seems to result in a net reduction in collisions but more data is needed. All this is to say the primary purpose of speed cameras is still revenue generation.
All this is to say the primary purpose of speed cameras is still revenue generation.
That’s not what Doug Ford said when he deployed them. He, citing the actual designers of the infrastructure, said it was a safety measure. But for some fucking reason, pedestrian safety and anything that inconveniences a motorist have become issues in the Culture War. Now his idiotic base is convinced that speed cameras are somehow a revenue issue, and so Doug Ford has changed his tune. But it’s just not reality. The speed cameras they we are talking about right now are deployed as a traffic-calming (ie pedestrian-not-killing) measure.
PEDESTRIANS DO NOT GET REAR-ENDED. IDGAF if motorists are hitting each other more often. That’s explicitly not the fucking point. Are you even aware that pedestrians are getting killed more now than any time in the last 40 years? There is a crisis happening right now and we need these interventions. So sorry if it inconveniences you.
Like I just said, you have clearly never even encountered serious, informed discussion on these subjects. Go watch some Oh The Urbanity and get back to us when you have an opinion that wasn’t given to you to enlist you in the Culture War.
It’s not the speedometer that you need to watch for, it’s the speed limit signs by the street. Many of them are blocked by trees or around corners, and they change the speed limit suddenly and without warning.
This is what it means to be a speed trap. Locals know about it because they live there. Gig workers do not.
Speed cameras also unfairly penalize gig workers who are driving all day and driving on unfamiliar streets all the time. The fines imposed for speeding are flat, not based on income, so they disproportionately affect lower income people of all sorts.
OH WELL.
This is a life-saving intervention that is empirically proven to save lives. The lives of pedestrians are more important than the income of gig workers. Pedestrians are an even more disadvantaged and vulnerable class than gig drivers.
It’s a tiny problem, we can accept that it is a bit regressive and adjust taxes elsewhere to compensate. For this, I should die? Sort it out, bud.
What the actual fuck. Lower income people can’t read a speedometer? This is such a Lemmy man bun and Birkenstock comment.
If the punishment is a static fine it’s only illegal for the poor.
The point isn’t to punish people, it’s to keep people un-killed. If speed cameras don’t work on 2% because they are wealthy sociopaths, that’s not a reason to abandon the intervention that has been clearly proven to work at the intended purpose of keeping people from getting killed. This is such a bizarre objection. Perhaps it is a reflex earned from decades of looking for how the poor get screwed and that’s admirable but it kind of looks like looking for any excuse not to have to slow down.
Do you have evidence that speed cameras with fines are clearly proven to “keep people from getting killed” because I’m pretty sure their primary purpose is revenue generation.
Edit: looking into it, it seems the majority of the available data generally indicates a reduction in collisions and fatalities but apparently the methodology across the various studies has been pretty inconsistent so there’s no hard numbers. But apparently they range from no reduction at all to 70 percent from my glancing at the data, apparently how many cameras how far apart and how far from the high traffic incident area are the main determining factors in reducing accidents. I may have overlooked it but I didn’t actually see anywhere that shows the speed reduction after camera introduction though.
What are you even doing in this community? Go watch Not Just Bikes for a few hours before you post here again.
When speed cameras were first introduced they led to an uptick in accidents because people would brake suddenly when they saw the camera and get rear ended. This still happens but thought out implementation seems to result in a net reduction in collisions but more data is needed. All this is to say the primary purpose of speed cameras is still revenue generation.
That’s not what Doug Ford said when he deployed them. He, citing the actual designers of the infrastructure, said it was a safety measure. But for some fucking reason, pedestrian safety and anything that inconveniences a motorist have become issues in the Culture War. Now his idiotic base is convinced that speed cameras are somehow a revenue issue, and so Doug Ford has changed his tune. But it’s just not reality. The speed cameras they we are talking about right now are deployed as a traffic-calming (ie pedestrian-not-killing) measure.
PEDESTRIANS DO NOT GET REAR-ENDED. IDGAF if motorists are hitting each other more often. That’s explicitly not the fucking point. Are you even aware that pedestrians are getting killed more now than any time in the last 40 years? There is a crisis happening right now and we need these interventions. So sorry if it inconveniences you.
Like I just said, you have clearly never even encountered serious, informed discussion on these subjects. Go watch some Oh The Urbanity and get back to us when you have an opinion that wasn’t given to you to enlist you in the Culture War.
You didn’t get hugged much as a child huh?
It’s not the speedometer that you need to watch for, it’s the speed limit signs by the street. Many of them are blocked by trees or around corners, and they change the speed limit suddenly and without warning.
This is what it means to be a speed trap. Locals know about it because they live there. Gig workers do not.