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.
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.
traffic cameras in fucking Cornwall, this is where we really really need to draw the line and talk about systemic discrimination.
The world is larger than just Cornwall. Your bad faith reductionist arguments are idiotic.
You acknowledge that systemic discrimination exists, but you want to paint borders around where it’s appropriate to talk about it. Why? Systemic discrimination is always worth examining. Yes, even in Cornwall, but also everywhere else.
there’s an extremely simple solution for not being „filtered into the justice system“: stop driving too fast
Nice how you conveniently ignore the other points made in this thread about how speed cameras actually are used. They don’t call these approaches “speed traps” for nothing, there is intentional entrapment built into the system.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
No offense but you should re-read the posts above.
deleted by creator
The sentence just prior.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
The world is larger than just Cornwall. Your bad faith reductionist arguments are idiotic.
You acknowledge that systemic discrimination exists, but you want to paint borders around where it’s appropriate to talk about it. Why? Systemic discrimination is always worth examining. Yes, even in Cornwall, but also everywhere else.
Nice how you conveniently ignore the other points made in this thread about how speed cameras actually are used. They don’t call these approaches “speed traps” for nothing, there is intentional entrapment built into the system.
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.
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.
deleted by creator