You must log in or register to comment.
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.
LaLuzDelSol (on Lemmy): thinks Lemmy is one person
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting. Mostly what I see is people slam on their brakes near the camera, then take off again after it.
My theory: There’s so little enforcement of the traffic laws here, they might as well not exist. You’re almost certain NOT to get caught, so people will do whatever they want and will practically always get away with it. I don’t really want to argue for more cops, but when I’ve driven in areas with more traffic enforcement and visible police presence, people tend to drive much more sedately.
I drive and ride bicycle, and I would LOVE if the cops came riding with me some time. I see some of them doing the 100 mile ride for charity in our county, so I know they have people on the force who ride fairly seriously. Join one of our regular group rides wearing cycling clothes (not police gear), get another cop stationed ahead in a car or motorcycle…and start pulling over some people who buzz us or roll coal. Word would get out very quickly.
For me personally, I think more cops isn’t the ideal solution. Instead, I think traffic calming measures should be introduced to make drivers feel less safe if they choose to speed.
Better enforcement is 100% necessary, and I think speed cams can be a good way to prevent dangerous driving through the threat of enforcement. That said, I also think in terms of cost efficiency that direct preventative measures such as speed cushions, bollards, trees, medians, sidewalk extensions, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. will be more cost-effective to some point than and should be used in conjunction with speed cams.
I can see those kinds of things working in or near cities, but out where I am - fairly rural - there’s just too many miles of road to install a bunch of speed humps or similar things. It would take a monumental amount of money. They don’t even have shoulders on most of the roads. I admit even I speed when I’m driving them, although I’ll slow down for bends in the road so as not to clobber a deer, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. that might be lurking out of sight.
(I got into a fun argument here on Lemmy a few months back with someone who insisted horse and buggies should have lights, and I was like, “What happens when you come around the bend too fast and there’s a tree laying in the road?” He just couldn’t accept the problem is the driver, not the horse and buggy. Basically, that’s what’s wrong with drivers in the US: We, as a group, have a bizarre expectation that things will always go to plan.)
I’m also nervous about these solutions for another reason - I’ve seen towns install those kinds of calming measures in a way that hurts cyclists. In one example, they extended the curbs out to the lane, which does slow down traffic - but it forces cyclists who could previously ride on the shoulder into the lane, thereby further enraging drivers. I had one asshole pass me in that very narrow section some years ago, so now I make sure to ride in the middle of it, so they’d actually have to hit me. They won’t do that because they don’t want to damage their precious car, so I’m safe.
And I say this as someone that lives in an area that’s actually pretty good for cycling, that is, most drivers are actually pretty good about passing safely and all that.
Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.
I’d be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.
Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn’t for another.
Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you’re just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can’t use the area but bikes can.
I would love to see a more recent study. Safety tends to be a weird subject, particularly the treadmill of introducing safety features, which means more drivers drive unsafely because safety features give an appearance of safety.
Overall, I still stand by what I said outside of maybe the very first sentence. Even if they DO slow traffic, there are vastly better ways that don’t have a disproportionate impact.
My city started putting in speed cushions at roads that were constantly over-traveled. Neighborhoods that would see increased traffic during rush hour, for instance. They’re aggressive, you have to go BELOW the speed limit to safely drive the route. Those roads see SIGNIFICANTLY less traffic, and the traffic that is there is slower.
Fines just don’t work to deter your average driver, or at least not as much as physics does.
Oh yeah, just to be clear, I’m a massive fan of urbanist channels like NJB and absolutely stan the shit out of traffic calming measures. Give me more trees on the sides of the road to make it feel narrower. Give me speed humps. Give me medians. Give me sidewalk extensions. Give me roundabouts. Inject that shit into my veins. I see speed cameras as just one tool in an arsenal to create safer driving conditions, and mercifully, it seems like the US is starting to warm up to those.
I’m pretty sure we’re 100% on the same page here as far as traffic calming measures go, and I think we’d both agree too that if there are fines, they need to be adjusted to account for income. (Here’s an upvote by the way to counteract that downvote; this is one of like two reasonable takes I’ve seen in this thread against speed cameras.)
I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they’re implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can’t be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren’t revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.
I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It’s HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it’s subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.
From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.
Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that’s going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it’s something.
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.
people treat speeding like an oopsie daisy
And often even this is too generous. Most drivers I’ve seen in the US treat speeding like a calculated risk that they feel out over time. They will with an unambiguous understanding of what the speed limit is choose to not just exceed it, but to actively target a speed that’s (usually 5 mph or 8 kph) over it.
That’s because eons ago a judge determined the error rate for speedometers and radar guns was around 10 mph and we couldn’t punish people for something they don’t realize they’re doing.
Completely rushing past the fact that not realizing your speed is itself a giant red flag.
And that has absolutely contributed to the sense of entitlement to speed.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.
The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren’t able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying “hey! Slow down or pay the toll!”
We can’t do that for most of the roads. We really do just need more traffic cops, tougher penalties, and more cameras. Part of the reason people speed is because getting caught is like getting struck by lightning. I’ve seen people do 80 right by a cop and the cop doesn’t stop them. The level of enforcement is not commensurate with the safety risk.
And as long as the penalty is fines, it’s literally “pay the toll to go fast”. At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can’t just say “ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail.” That’ll do way more harm than good.
Well there’s three ways to fix that. A state max over which it’s a criminal offense and you go away in handcuffs. A sliding fine that hits for percentage of income. And making all of the penalties criminal. Make it an actual crime for which you have to be taken to jail, booked, and arraigned. Make sure to write in language extending the liability to employers for chauffeurs.
As in a camera that catches people for speeding? Sounds like some bootlicker behavior if you ask me
One could enhance it into an art installation with thermite.
maybe their 7-11 doesn’t sell it
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.
They are hidden here, not yellow bright.
In the US every state I’ve seen has to put multiple warning signs out, starting about a mile out. It’s 100% obvious.
Sucks to be whenever you are I guess. I’m used to that way they work where I live.
Fixed speed camera housings located within an area of street or highway lighting should be coloured yellow either by painting both the front and back of the housing or covering both the front and back of the housing with retroreflective sheeting. In an area not covered by street or highway lighting, the speed camera housing should be treated with yellow retroreflective sheeting.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819278e5274a2e87dbe588/dft-circular-0107.pdf
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?”
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.
I think the sentiment against them stems from the fact that there are ways to reduce speeds without feeling like they’re being used as a revenue stream.
Personally I like when there are warning signs saying “Speed camera in use ahead” since it has the effect of slowing down traffic and not feeling like a “gotcha” moment.
It should feel like a “gotcha” moment, though, or it only properly enforces speeds near the speed camera. If you can’t be certain that you’re not going to run into a speed camera but you have a general understanding that they’re around, you’re going to be much more likely not to speed in general versus just when you see the sign telling you to slow down. The reduction in speed from the sign is still better than nothing, but it lets drivers compartmentalize where there are “safe” zones to speed, and that partly defeats the purpose.
Honestly msost people speeding are not putting anyone in any more danger than going the speed limit. They are just going the speed that feels correct for the road which is often correct for the road.
Hard to say. That study you linked mentions reductions in speed and crashes in the vicinity of the camera, which to me indicates that people are only slowing down because they know a camera is there. I suppose someone would have to do a study to see if speed cameras reduce speeds and crashes in areas where there aren’t currently cameras, but have been in the past. Meaning that people are slowing down in areas where they think there might be cameras.
Maybe just drive the speed limit?
yes, because no one has ever gotten a ticket or in trouble for something they didn’t do.
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?
no one said not to follow the law, but there are always exception. nothing is ever just black and white.
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 do not post camera signs in US
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.
I don’t want the law changed where I live, because these cameras are prohibited!
Several states in the USA prohibit speed cameras and traffic light cameras, because a citizen must be able to face their accuser when accused of a crime. This is a great example of freedom in the USA, where we do not let machines automatically issue fines against human beings.
The government would be the accuser?? Just because a camera is used for evidence doesn’t make the camera THE accuser. Civilized nations have a way to fight the camera-issued fine, for example if the photo doesn’t show your face.
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.
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.
Give it up, bro. Everyone here wants to circlejerk that breaking the law is cool.
It only seems to be since the yanks woke up.
American driver entitlement is the purest, most potent form of entitlement.
I don’t know if you knew this, but with regard to US Interstates, there’s a common saying that goes “nine you’re fine, ten you’re mine.” It’s essentially saying “under 15 kph you’re fine, but over 15 you’re busted for speeding”. That is, if you want to exceed the already quite high speed limit, you should feel safe doing up to 9 additional mph over that. And they’re actually not wrong; many police literally don’t enforce traffic law up to that point, or they only do so if they really have a bee in their bonnet. In large part this is because nearly every driver’s doing it, which is one of the main reasons why cameras are useful: it doesn’t have to stop your car, ask if you know why it pulled you over, listen to you try talking your way out of a ticket, be subject to human biases such as ethnicity, gender, and personality in determining whether to let you go with just a warning or not, and generate enough paperwork to disincentivize the enforcement of traffic law as written.
Except in a school zone, if you get pulled over doing within 5 mph (8 kph) of the speed limit, it’s seen by drivers as a huge power trip and something you should gaslight the court into believing you didn’t do, and from 5–10 mph, it’s basically seen as getting unlucky. The state of speeding in the US is so dire that even asserting that speed limits should be enforced as marked is something that will get you shouted down.
Do you have a source for your belief that speed cameras make the road significantly safer?
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%.
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.
Nice of you to take that out of context.
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.
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
They know they’re objectively beneficial, and now they just want to firmly measure to what extent that is. They nonetheless express zero doubt that it’s positive based on the existing evidence.
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.
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. 🎆🎇✨
Is it the cars, or is it police using laws as revenue generators that intentionally affect the poor disproportionately?
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.
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.
You’ve never been in a fun car on a fun twisty back road. This is what driving should be, as we should not be dependent on driving to get everywhere.
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.
I’m cool with impounding cars and putting drivers in jail.
-
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.
- If you don’t break the law you won’t have a problem
this MF is a bootlicker if I’ve ever seen one.
there are a million ways a cop would fuck you over, primarily being “not white” or looking at them wrong, NOTHING to do with law.
I’ll give the UK a break as they’re not nearly as bad as the US, but cops are not your friends and that sentence quotes is a joke.
“if you got nothing to hide, let me search your car”
fuck no.
No. This is a safety thing. This is multiple tons moving at speed. This gets regulated.
I don’t think anyone has ever received a speeding fine from a speed camera who was going at the speed limit.
Stop being a cunt and think of others road safety.
how about not being so dense and understand that governments can be wrong and abuse innocent people with no real recourse?
I don’t know what the rules are in the USA but over here you should be stopping on amber, not blasting through.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic
you don’t have to blast through, but there are times when you can’t stop, and there are expected time frames between yellow to red depending on the speed limit no that street and if the city is reducing that time, when the rest of the nation knows what it should be, that should be 100% criminal charges to whoever decided to do that.
-
You are allowed to drive the speed limit, even if you’re poor 😇
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.
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.
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.”
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Boy, I can just feel the salt from a past speeding ticket coming from this comment.
Maybe stop being a shitty driver who feels entitled to break traffic laws designed to keep people safe from entitled, careless idiots in their two-tonne metal box. 💀 You’re whining elsewhere in the thread about a 37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers), so you’re not even complaining about accuracy so much as how much illegal driving you think you should be able to get away with. Speed limits are already across the board much higher than they should be to cater to cars; if you don’t feel like you’re competent enough to do something as trivial as stay exactly the speed limit when they’re already unfairly high in your favor, then it’s a limit for a reason: you can go a mph or two slower than it, and you won’t, like, die or anything.
37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers)
LMAO
you’re basing this all off of people breaking the law completely ignoring the fact that police ABUSE the FUCK out of people for nothing. don’t act all high and mighty like you never do anything wrong.
- I’ve never gotten a speeding ticket or pulled over for speeding.
- I don’t speed.
I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I’m sorry about your past speeding ticket(s). I hope you can someday find the strength to move on and become a more mindful driver.
It’s well in the shade already.
Just wait until the turtle turns a little.
90s take
Looks like they should do the cameras in a different order.
That is a really confusing perspective
