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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They litterally demonstrably do. Either actually engage your brain and look things up instead of parroting nonsense or take your bullshit back to reddit.
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.
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.
Besides, you shouldn’t have to be threatened with a speed camera to just stay under the bloody speed limit. It’s literally a crime not to, and besides that it’s reckless and dangerous.
Idiots that speed in cars deserve a special kind of hell where they’re tortured by all the children their kind have murdered.
Probably you should be breaking on the hill? Regardless of if your foot’s on the gas or you’re just letting the slope do the work, you’re still speeding which is a hazard.
Yeah, I’m sure it also racks up some revenue too. Why not get a few more bucks while keeping the careless on their toes?
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.
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.
Road safety is bad mmkay
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:
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Maybe just drive the speed limit?
yes, because no one has ever gotten a ticket or in trouble for something they didn’t do.
deleted by creator
no one said not to follow the law, but there are always exception. nothing is ever just black and white.
Better argument than “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”
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.
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.
And how am I supposed to attend a speed awareness course while working over 40 hours a week?
“hi boss I need to take a half day holiday on X date, I have to attend a speed awareness course”
"Hey bob, can I swap a shift with you on X date, I’ll work your X Saturday. I’ve got to attend a speed awareness course "
Or if you’re to chicken to tell the truth replace with dentist. Or just throw a sickie.
It’s hardly rocket science.
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.
UK is not civilised in this case. Cameras usually photograph back of a car here.
deleted by creator
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.
🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓
They litterally demonstrably do. Either actually engage your brain and look things up instead of parroting nonsense or take your bullshit back to reddit.
k
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.
Sucks to be whenever you are I guess. I’m used to that way they work where I live.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a819278e5274a2e87dbe588/dft-circular-0107.pdf
In the US every state I’ve seen has to put multiple warning signs out, starting about a mile out. It’s 100% obvious.
And here is not US.
Well. Don’t keep us waiting. What country is surprising people with speed cameras?
I think whole D-A-CH? At least switzerland and germany.
Tell me you never left the US without telling me.
And BTW sweetheart, Germany has no speed limit on the motorways at all and yet it is safe. Go figure.
No that’s more like, “never been to Central Europe”. Going to Germany is not some kind of test for international travel.
Germany also has strict requirements for driver licenses and a robust mass transit system that removes many people from the roads.
It’s clearly bright yellow.
Besides, you shouldn’t have to be threatened with a speed camera to just stay under the bloody speed limit. It’s literally a crime not to, and besides that it’s reckless and dangerous.
Idiots that speed in cars deserve a special kind of hell where they’re tortured by all the children their kind have murdered.
Probably you should be breaking on the hill? Regardless of if your foot’s on the gas or you’re just letting the slope do the work, you’re still speeding which is a hazard.
Yeah, I’m sure it also racks up some revenue too. Why not get a few more bucks while keeping the careless on their toes?
60 instead of 50 (because steep slope) is speeding?
Yep, that’s an 8.5% mortality increase on freeways and 2.8% increase on other roads. Better keep the brake down.
I mean, i agree, but that one was really a trap. Steep slope out of the woods, hidden camera and then 100’s of meters straight unobstructed road.
Do you have a source for your belief that speed cameras make the road significantly safer?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20927736/
Nice of you to take that out of context.
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.
deleted by creator