It’s insane the lengths that some people will go to save a few seconds on their commute, while also endangering others.

  • @OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    0
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Speed trap” cameras are an entirely apt name. The solution to speeding isn’t cameras, or patrols, or administrative controls, it’s traffic calming, and that reduces capacity, so it’s not considered. The trap is driving on the road at speeds they seem to be designed for, with speed limits significantly lower.

    Fuck cars, but fuck cops more. We don’t need to live in a panopticon. These cameras are a step in the wrong direction, and while I don’t think the person who cut them down is doing the right thing for the right reasons, they are doing the right thing.

    • @mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      04 months ago

      Cameras are enforcement without the discrimination and potential for violence that cops bring.

      Traffic calming is great but it’s also more expensive. Maybe drivers should just try driving below the speed limit.

      • @bear_delune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        04 months ago

        Incorrect; they discriminate disproportionately on poor people

        Unless the fines are proportional to wealth, I don’t see how you can argue that they’re not disproportionally punishing the poorest who are caught.

        • @mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          04 months ago

          I agree the fines should be proportionate, but a police officer doing the enforcement can stop whoever they don’t like the look of whether or not they are actually speeding whereas a camera will only target those who are actually, you know, speeding.

          • @bear_delune@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            04 months ago

            I didn’t say pigs are any better.

            My point is if someone has the wealth to not feel the fine, the camera does nothing to influence their behaviour and such target those who can’t afford it.

      • @OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        04 months ago

        However it throws hundreds of people through the equally discriminatory criminal justice system, and allows car insurance companies to jack up rates. Functioning even more effectively as a tax on being different than regular cops do. It also creates a financial incentive for the government not to fix the underlying cause of the problem of speeding.

        Wishing and hoping for people to be better than they are isn’t a solution. Just because traffic calming is more expensive, that’s not a reason to not do it. It is something that needs to be done if you want to break car dependency.

        • @Z27F@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          TIL speeding is just „being different“ 🤡

          There’s really nothing you morons won’t come up with to justify going as fast as you want to.

          Yeah yeah, I get it, you only want to „break car dependency“, sure. So what exactly does cutting down speed cameras do to „break car dependency“? Oh right, nothing.

            • @Z27F@thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              04 months ago

              What part of „functioning even more effectively as a tax on being different“ should I be re-reading?

                • @Z27F@thelemmy.club
                  link
                  fedilink
                  04 months ago

                  Which does change what exactly about this being about people who are fined for a traffic violation and not discriminated for „being different“?

                  • Luke
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    04 months ago

                    The camera is not what’s discriminating (in theory), it’s the justice system that they have to deal with after the camera triggers on them.

                    To expand on what the above commenter said, the cameras are also discriminating because of the simple statistics of class dynamics. There are more poor people than rich ones being filtered into the justice system by cameras. Cameras also could be installed disproportionately in minority or poor neighborhoods, for example. Pretending that there aren’t other discriminatory dynamics at play and acting like it’s as simple as “tEchNoLoGY iS nEutRaL!” is ignorant.

        • @mondoman712@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          04 months ago

          Wishing and hoping for people to be better than they are isn’t a solution. Just because traffic calming is more expensive, that’s not a reason to not do it. It is something that needs to be done if you want to break car dependency.

          We should be doing that, but local councils don’t have the money after more than a decade of tory austerity. I also believe that driver’s should be able to drive below the speed limit even if the road isn’t correct for it, because there will always be places like that (around construction, for example), and like you say we can’t just wish and hope for them to follow that rule so some enforcement is needed.

          • @OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            04 months ago

            In engineering, there is an idea called hierarchy of controls.

            Traffic calming is a “substitution” of the hazard. It, like unexpected construction, forces drivers to slow down due to the road not being psychologically safe to drive fast on.

            Speed limits are an “administrative control” on the other hand.

            People will drive as fast as they (possibly incorrectly) feel is safe, and a lot goes into that, of which speeding fines are only one very small part. If you really want safe streets for pedestrians and motorists, it is just not as effective an option.

            Additionally, I’m level certain that Tory austerity is not really a viable excuse here, because I’m sure that there are ongoing efforts to “alleviate the traffic problem” by adding capacity. It’s not that the money doesn’t exist, it’s that the money doesn’t exist for this. Because elected officials aren’t interested in this, because they’re more interested in fine revenue and keeping car people happy.

            • @Z27F@thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              0
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Wow, you brought a chart, how nice.

              Now, can you explain to us, how is removing the „administrative control“ – the one that the people living there literally campaigned for – without implementing any of the other steps „doing the right thing“?

              You’re the kind of person who takes away the workers‘ masks saying „What they really really need is better air conditioning! I’m very intelligent!“

              And to be very clear, you applauding those idiots is costing lives https://thelemmy.club/comment/6734593

              Go fuck yourself and your chart.

      • You will unconsciously drive as fast as the road allows you unless you keep checking your speedometer. Some cars too can insulate you from the noise and sense of speed that you will drive faster than you’d typically do in another car.

        • @Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Spoken as someone who doesn’t drive.

          Did you know that keeping track of your speed is easy and a critical part of driving?

          Some cars too can insulate you from the noise and sense of speed that you will drive faster than you’d typically do in another car.

          How about electric cars?

    • @CommodoreSixtyFour_@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      and while I don’t think the person who cut them down is doing the right thing for the right reasons, they are doing the right thing.

      So you think they are doing the right thing for… the wrong reasons?

      Yeah, the omnipotentEntity seems to lack a bit of reasoning here.