They wouldn’t make money if people managed to, you know, just follow the speed limit. If you can’t follow a basic rule of the road you shouldn’t be driving.
We live in material reality, not a fantasy in your head. Justifying bullshit that specifically fucks over the poor while not really affecting the rich (because fines are just fees you pay to break the law when you’re rich enough for them to be minor inconveniences) with what amounts to Cartman screaming RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH is bullshit. You want people to actually slow down? Redesign the road.
This praxis does two things, it prevents the poor being fucked over if these are just there to make council money, or it causes them to give up on the camera and properly redesign the road when it’s actually about real safety concerns.
Given this has happened before and they only replaced the camera I’m siding with “it’s for council income not actual safety”. If they do it again I feel doubley vindicated in that opinion. If it’s actually about real safety concerns they’ll give up on the camera and add in pedestrian refuge islands to slow traffic instead. Love these badboys
The local community campaigned to get these speed cameras because people were speeding. Redesigning the road would be great, if the council had money to, but I doubt they do.
Poor people aren’t getting screwed over by this because poor people can’t afford to drive, they’re the ones that have to deal with the unsafe driving of the middle class dada on their German coupes that can’t bare to drive at less that 50mph.
The cost of physical redesign traffic calming measures is significantly cheaper to install than the cameras, whose cost is justified by councils because of the income they bring in thereafter.
The insistence on replacing it instead of doing something else is being justified internally because even with these attacks they consider it to be making more than it’s costing them.
Poor people aren’t getting screwed over by this because poor people can’t afford to drive,
Mate fuck right off. This statement just screams that you’ve never actually done any organising or volunteering with the poor in the UK. Please volunteer at a food bank for once in your fucking life and learn what kinds of people the 3million people in this country attending them are like. It will surprise you, expand your view of society a bit, and you’ll be doing an actually-good useful thing.
The poorest people own the fewest cars, and are the most affected by things like air pollution, and if they do have to own cars they’re the ones most at hurt by car dependency (which is perpetuated by road violence caused by things like speeding).
If you say utterly stupid ass things like poor people don’t own cars I will absolutely assume you don’t interact with the people struggling to survive in this country in any capacity. It’s a bloody stupid thing to say mate.
I mean what I said, go and volunteer and see for yourself.
I’m sorry I didn’t think I needed to spell it out that much to you. Obviously I don’t think all poor people don’t drive. But the poorest don’t, and statistically poorer people drive a lot less and are more impacted by things like this.
I don’t agree that speeding is ok if poor people do it, and I don’t think the removal of the speed cameras is a step to the better alternative, unless it’s part of removing cars from the road in question entirely.
Ok so what do you expect to happen when you rock up to the council and say “Hi, I want to replace this speed camera making tens of thousands in profit per year with this other solution that makes no money at all” ?
Please tell me what you think the pathway to the alternative better solution is.
I wouldn’t replace it. Some people will still speed even with traffic calming so the camera is still useful.
If you want to reduce the council’s income from speed cameras, the first thing would be to elect a central government that will properly fund local councils so they have the budget to make decisions like that.
You physically can’t speed with traffic calming, they will just crash and fuck up their vehicles.
This conversation is silly. Right from the start if you were committed to this fuck the poor nonsense you should have just been honest and admitted it so neither of our times would have been wasted on this ridiculous farce.
Not really that surprised, typical liberal bullshit. Gonna vote Starmer too yeah?
I’m not a lib, I’m not a fan of Keith, and I’m not saying “fuck the poor”. Poor people are the most impacted by car dependency which is perpetuated by dangerous driving. If you don’t want to have this conversation anymore you can stop replying.
Croydon council responded to FOI request stating it costs £2.5-£3.5k to install traffic islands. The cost of a speed camera installation on the other hand is £85,000 according to Bedford Council, with a £5000 annual upkeep cost.
Croydon cites average cost for roughly such an action at 2,5k - 3,5k in a denial of the FOI request which means there’s pretty much no way to know how much it actually costs depending on what they calculate the average on and if you have any idea about the cost of public works that number should strike you as very, very oddly low.
Wiltshire government here cites about 45.000k for a traffic island narrowing a road to one lane, all in all.
The source you cite for the cameras, however, puts those costs for 2 cameras, so 42,500 a pop / 2500 upkeep annual, albeit with returns via fines obviously.
You want people to actually slow down? Redesign the road.
I’ve posed this question elsewhere in this thread and: what until then? Like what do you do until a good, what, 50 - 90% of road depending on criteria, is redesigned?
The process and length of time it takes for either option are practically the same. It’s irrelevant. Not to mention a traffic island costs like £3k while a camera costs £85k (guess why they pick the camera despite the price).
Having been to court twice for online related stuff I will absolutely couch this shit.
I do not see how that question is doing anything but attempting some sort of gotcha or accusation that these people deserve to be fucked over instead of have real designs that don’t result in their lives being made harder.
Having been to court twice for online related stuff I will absolutely couch this shit.
Fair, I meant it more on “don’t do it on my accord”
I do not see how that question is doing anything but attempting some sort of gotcha or accusation that these people
Your these people just seems to have some very oddly drawn lines is the heart of it. It does include poor drivers, to whom speed cameras are a problem and not that much of a solution, it does not seem to include poor people not in a car, who profit from this. My FALGSOC doesn’t have speed cameras in it - who’s would - but it’s a long way from here to there.
deserve to be fucked over instead of have real designs that don’t result in their lives being made harder. It seems like spite to me.
This is running on the assumption that I think people deserve to be fucked over for speeding, and that’s the main motivation. Sure, some of them, but that’s not the kind of distinction a speed cam could make on account of how it works. I’d very much be open to them not issuing fines but other punishments - as appropiate - to not make them so classist. Loss of driving license, if you really, really fuck up in a sports car that gets impounded or such, but I’ll concede, even that is far out from today, but just to point it out,
My point here is that for every one it fucks over, it helps other people not being fucked over, because it does do something against speeding. My line of reasoning for speed cams is not that it fucks people over, it’s that it helps people. You wanna focus on the first part, I’m trying to get you to see the issue is more complex than that, at least if you include people outside of cars in your consideration. They’re not a good solution, by any means, again, I assume our optimal way of solving it is quite similar. For the meantime though, the fuck else do you do? Just abandon all traffic enforcement until all the roads get fixed? So what, 20 years of being vulnerable road users being even more endangered than now?
My point here is that for every one it fucks over, it helps other people not being fucked over, because it does do something against speeding. My line of reasoning for speed cams is not that it fucks people over, it’s that it helps people. You wanna focus on the first part, I’m trying to get you to see the issue is more complex than that, at least if you include people outside of cars in your consideration.
Well my line of reasoning is that there is an alternative that fucks no poor people over, and that taking action to achieve that end us a good thing. A negative in the short term leads to a longterm positive.
Also I see no other method of doing this. If you go to the council and say “I want to replace this highly profitable traffic camera making hundreds of thousands per year with a traffic island that will make no money at all” the decision that any team will make internally is obvious. That issue inevitably leads to destruction of these cameras as the only method of causing the alternative to occur.
A negative in the short term leads to a longterm positive.
I do not want to die a martyr to the fight against traffic cams.
Also I see no other method of doing this. If you go to the council and say “I want to replace this highly profitable traffic camera making hundreds of thousands per year with a traffic island that will make no money at all” the decision that any team will make internally is obvious.
That kind of poses the second question as to what, in the interim, will be cut as per budget, but that’s a sidenote. I guarantee you without change far reaching enough to societally gain a new understanding of public space and roads, when the last speed cam is dismantled you’ll find all the roads still suck ass and will not be redesigned. Once you have the change so far reaching that you can reunderstand basically every road, yeah, then you don’t need the traffic cams anymore and they can be dismantled.
I was ruder than I should’ve been, I thought you were the other person who has irritated me a bit.
I guarantee you without change far reaching enough to societally gain a new understanding of public space and roads
This is the weird fantasy part I was referring to. It’s like, just nonsense. It comes off like an american attitude being ported to the UK with absolutely no adaptation whatsoever to British conditions. Our conditions are nothing like america. Getting rid of cameras and getting traffic calming measures installed instead is not particularly difficult, it’s about the same. This idea of complete and widespread reinterpretation of public space? It doesn’t make sense here.
The particular road from the OP is a main road through rural space between major locations. By American standards it would be considered idyllic.
There’s no “reimagining” needed here. People don’t need to develop a new consciousness of public space. We do not live in a country that is utterly obsessed with cars like america. And we aren’t opposed to limiting them. There are zero political barriers to this, the only barrier is the profit/revenue barrier of the traffic camera obsessed crowd. I must stress, I am not just cherrypicking out rare projects that look good. This shit is bog standard, everywhere in the country already. In every town, in every village, in every city. Outisde every school. In every residential area. All over the country.
It is categorically not the same environment here and we do not share the same political barriers or problems.
Damn right op, going at 30 rather than 20 is a terrible thing to do. Driving at 20 is the moral choice. Yes it means your commute will be 50% longer than if you’d driven at 30, but that’s a sacrifice we should all be willing to make, said no-one with a 2 hour daily commute.
Except it won’t be 50% longer, not unless you’re going cross country. If you’re driving anything less than 100+ MI =,10 mph isn’t going to make pretty much any difference in your commute time at all. Not to mention your just going to hit a light and someone traveling the actual speed limit will then pull up right along side you while you wait
That’s the point yes, looking purely at math assuming a completely 100% clear no stop Journey it would be faster. But that’s not how life works, you stop at lights, you slow down at ramps, you stop at intersections. All of these things together make it so that unless you’re traveling like a hundred miles or more it’s just not going to make a difference. I very regularly make trips between Seattle and Portland, the difference between trying to cruise control 65 the whole way and trying to cruise control 75 the whole way isn’t very large. Last time I remember trying I think it was about a 20 minute difference in a trip that is almost 3 hours Real world slowdowns end up equalizing much of the journey
As someone who commuted an hour each way for a year, I both calculated to the best of my ability and then tested. I could shave 5 minutes off by going 65 instead of 55 on the 55 mph highways, and fuel consumption was significantly higher. Going 30 in a 20 zone will do jack shit for someone commuting on surface streets
You use twice as mich fuel to accelerate from 0 to 30mph as 0 to 20mph, and if you hit a pedestrian at 30mph there’s a 20% chance it will be fatal Vs 2.5% at 20mph.
You are never going to average the speed limits throughout your drive, unless you’re speeding. In an urban environment, where 20mph speed limits are used, you will lose seconds on your journey.
But anyway, where is this coming from? The post is about speed cameras, not what the limits are set to. Why are you even bringing that up?
Alright, I gotta ask. What’s the speed limit, and what’s the threshold that you get mailed a ticket?
I’m asking because in the state where I live in the US, speed cameras were outlawed unless a police officer was stationed to sit there and watch it all day. The reason being is that people were getting mailed $200 tickets for going 1 mph over the speed limit. This was problematic because no car’s speedometer is perfectly calibrated, and people who tried to do the right thing were getting a dozen tickets in the mail before they even realized they’d done something wrong.
Also, cameras were disproportionately being installed in poor neighborhoods, punishing more people without the means to pay the tickets. Which is obviously not a safety measure, but a punitive measure.
So going 39mph in a 35mph zone gets you a ticket? I’d probably cut down the camera too, in that case. You’d spend more time watching the speedo than the road, which would make the road less safe.
There are no 35mph zones in the UK. They’re all multiples of 10. The limits are well known and we’re taught how to follow them, it’s not the problem you’re making it out to be.
Um, you do know that being able to acutely control your speed is a critical prerequisite for being able to operate a motor vehicle, right? Being unable to keep it within a 2-3 mph range is not normal, and may indicate a minor neurological condition or lack of patrice and training. You should not be getting task saturated monitoring your speed, as beyond watching for people entering the road before you, monitoing for lights and signs, and monitoring the space between the vehicle in front of you, speed control is the fourth most important thing to keep an eye on while using our shared pubic road infrastructure.
Cruise control exists, and is an very useful way to reduce task saturation if you need to, but if you don’t have that in your vehicle may I suggest the radical idea of aiming for a speed slow enough you won’t unknowingly cross the limit by that much. The speed limit is the upper bound, not lower. Like just do try and do 30 or 25 if you can’t tell the difference. Thanks to how travel times work, it won’t even have that much impact on your arrival time at ranges short enough to be done on 35mph streets.
You are operating an device that can kill innocent unrelated strangers in an instant, it is YOUR job to do so safely within the bounds of the road networks design. If you are unable to do so, then you are unable to do so. There is no shame in that, much like there is no shame in needing glasses, but please, adjust your life so that you don’t risk killing innocent people at risk for your own convenience.
Being too attentative (distracted) to the speedometer is far more dangerous than the harm of going 5-9 mph over in many cases. And like mentioned earlier in tbe thread, many cars have a spedometer only accurate within 2-4 mph.
Being able to tell how fast your vehicle is moving to within a 2 to 4 mph range, what the law in question id designed to accommodate for, is not being too attentive to the speedometer. It is part of the very basic foundation of being able to control a motor vehicle. Again, I’m sorry you are only leaning this now, but being unable to do so is not normal for a driver.
Our common roads, vehicles, insurance, and laws are all designed under the assumption that going five over is an intentional act because for nearly all drivers it very much is.
I worry that like much like it might be hard for a child to realize they need glasses becuse they assume their normal and everyone else’s vision is as bad as their’s, you are assuming that everyone struggles with monitoing their speed to within five to ten miles an hour, they don’t. That’s one of the things that a drivers test is soposed to test for in the first place.
A speedometer that is only accurate to within 2 to 4 mph is still only off by 2 mph at most on average, given that the center of that range is going to be on the vehicle’s real speed.
At the speeds we’re talking about, being nine over is equivalent to an extra half a vehicle’s worth of kinetic energy on top of what the road was designed for, which has a very big impact on whether or not your vehicle’s breaks can act to dissipate that energy in the time the civil engineers who designed the road system assume it will.
Please provide a source that going 44 in a 35 is far less dangerous than what should be a subconscious part of driving. All I could find was this study, which shows that if you don’t see them come out from behind a parked car on the side of the road in time, and if you are struggling to monitor the speedometer that is likely, going from an impact speed of 32mph to 42 mph, doubles the odds of killing the person you just hit.
Why not? It’s obviously a huge hazard and people can’t be trusted to use it safely. So for the public health and safety this road should be closed. This also means the poor council doesn’t need to maintain this road anymore saving money in the long run. Maybe a train could even replace where the road was increases throughput and safety for everyone.
Because that’s hardly what can be considered a realistic solution. Again, not against it, but what, are you gonna close down like 90% of roads? Only some of them, if so, which ones, and how is stuff handled on the ones that remain open?
Traffic calming and speed cameras are carrot and stick in lowering the speed of roads. Lowering the design speed of roads alone is never going to stop drivers in a hurry from driving dangerously fast. People aren’t deterred from commiting crimes by heavy penalties, they are deterred by the chance of getting caught. Automatic traffic enforcement raises that chance to 100%.
Lowering the design speed of roads alone is never going to stop drivers in a hurry from driving dangerously fast
Why wouldn’t it? If drivers feel unsafe speeding down a road then they won’t speed, rendering speed cameras unnecessary. If you see a speed bump ahead of you aren’t you going slow down?
Speed cameras are applicable to all roads, from the 30 km/h residential street to the 140 km/h highway. Speed cameras are also self-funding and thus have a negative cost. Fines collected by speed cameras can be used to finance road redesign and traffic calming measures.
The same can be said for anything that the government contracts out. Road building is another good example, and there’s a lot more money to go around there than with speed cameras.
Please explain to me where the money to redesign and rebuild like half the city’s roads is going to come from if not from a transitional period of speed cameras.
Say, why are you such a virulent opponent of speed cameras? Do you find yourself to be a chronic speeder?
If you don’t drive, you have literally no reason to oppose speed cameras. Speed cameras reduce the negative externalities of cars at literally no cost to you. If you don’t drive, you cannot get a speed ticket.
Also, for the China fans out there, consider how the widespread implementation of automatic traffic enforcement cameras in China that do things from watching if you’re speeding, to watching if you’re driving in multiple lanes at once, to watching if you’re wearing a seatbelt have massively improved driving conditions and reduced road chaos in China. Automatic traffic enforcement makes driving better.
Well yeah, because China is a functional country that wants to actually decrease traffic violations.
The point of American cameras is to raise funds. That’s why there’s no immediate feedback for when you get a ticket. They don’t want people to connect their driving to consequences, they want the consequences to be distant with no immediate impact.
All it would take is for traffic cameras to flash drivers when they get a ticket. It’d be that easy. Yet it will never happen.
The widespread implementation of automatic traffic enforcement cameras in China objectively has decreased traffic violations. Compare driving in China in 2008 to 2024. It is a night and day difference.
I agree with your assessment about American traffic enforcement being more about collecting an informal tax than actually being about improving road safety (see: speed traps). In the UK (which this article is about), the speed cameras do flash (and thus provide immediate feedback).
America does this thing where only some areas have cameras, creating huge dead zones with no camera enforcement. This is done to catch drivers off-guard so that more traffic tickets are given out. As I understand it, China just has cameras on every street because their goal is to decrease traffic violations and not just generate ticket revenue.
I still think my idea of traffic cameras flashing drivers when they get ticketed would be effective, but China has it figured out.
As I understand it, China just has cameras on every street because their goal is to decrease traffic violations and not just generate ticket revenue.
This is correct. Traffic cameras are present on basically every street, and they are highly visible, preceded by a road sign, and your GPS audibly tells you about them. They also flash at you.
China also has a better implementation of red light cameras. Green lights start flashing a few seconds before they turn yellow, allowing you to either make it across the intersection or slow down in time.
Oh wow, warning flashes for green lights would be so helpful! There’s an intersection on the way to work where I live that has a four way stop, but at highway speeds. You have to hit the brakes hard when the light turns yellow or you’ll blow through when it turns red 😅
I was once passed by someone who was speeding along a narrow, windy road while I was following the speed limit. That entire length of road is a no passing zone. If they had passed slightly later, they would have had a head-on collision with another automobile that was coming the opposite direction. Some people will just do dumb things, no matter the road design.
Better infrastructure would be great, but there will always be places where you will need to drive slower than the designed speed, and drivers should be able to follow that if they’re going to be allowed to pilot a large and dangerous vehicle.
Governments are clamping down on protests against climate change: * silence *
Some idiots cut down speed cameras the people living there specifically asked for: YEAH! Fuck the police!!!1! Rage against the machine!!!1! Fuck mass surveillance!!!1!
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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!“
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.
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.
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.
I’ve had a speeding ticket where I was offered a “no points” option to pay a higher fine. That was only offered after I showed up in court. This would discriminate against poorer drivers.
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.
Meh, fuck the cameras. They don’t stop the actual dangerous drivers and just end up tagging folks going 8mph (13kph) over. Fix the street and infrastructure.
From 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17 to 39 per cent and fatalities by between 58 to 68 per cent within 500 metres of the cameras.
Road tax doesn’t exist in the UK, and if it did it wouldn’t be something the local council has any control over. We need to get rids of the tories in the central government and start funding local councils better.
Because god forbid we have a small variance for error and using common sense. God forbid I go faster when traffic is minimal or use any judgement while driving. Fuck me for thinking a ticket for going 5 over isn’t worth a beating.
Good. Speed cameras are an abominable hypocrisy. The claim that they’re there because safety is important is undermined by the total lack of action Devon and Cornwall police take against actual unsafe drivers.
I drove past a police officer standing with a speed camera recently at 20mph with another car driving less than two feet from my bumper.
Had I been speeding I’d have gotten a ticket, meanwhile the police watch this actually dangerous driver sail past them without taking any action.
Half a mile later I have to drive onto the wrong side of the road around a lorry parked on a corner, with almost no visibility of oncoming traffic.
Their moral authority is destroyed and their pretence shattered by their own inaction and ineffectiveness.
So tear down the speed cameras if it highlights their fiction. Devon and Cornwall police are great at many things. Traffic is not one of them.
A place where I lived they installed eur 600k worth of cameras. I mean every little corner was covered.
Well one day I got beaten up and the police didn’t care when I tried to report it. And another day I found a backpack so I brought it to the police and this woman was incredibly rude to me.
I mean for 600k they could have a full time patrol there!
Speed cameras are designed to do one thing – issue citations for speeding.
The job of the police officer is to identify a wide array of crimes and issue citations for them, when they observe them.
The incident where a car was tailgating you and the incident where a lorry was creating an unsafe driving situation have absolutely nothing to do with the speeding camera. Both of those situations are the responsibility of a policy officer, if they are alerted to the crime or observe it themselves. You have a valid complaint about the complacency of your local law enforcement, but what does your argument have to do with the speed camera?
The basis for the rationale for putting up speed cameras depends on the police to act with an unquestionable moral authority.
By acting with inconsistent moral principles they demonstrate their stated and genuine motives differ which undermines the moral authority they need to police by consent.
It explicitly takes control away from the police and moves it to simple sensors and circuits, as well as simple bureaucratic mailing lists. If it screws up, you can either request a manual review of the footage or spend an afternoon to bring your own evidence it in front of a judge. The police have nothing to do with it.
You’ll never get a real answer because the types of people that post these idiotic disingenuous complaints about speed cameras have nothing to say to the simple question:
Or maybe I was just out during the day and didn’t have a chance to respond until now?
I didn’t post a complaint about speed cameras and certainly not a disingenuous one at that. I was just pointing out an incorrect assumption made by an official quoted in the article.
I do think it’s kinda silly that your response to the fact that cameras don’t have a means to control traffic or stop accidents is to ask why I don’t drive the speed limit.
I do.
And cameras still can’t stop me from getting into an accident.
And cameras still can’t stop me from getting into an accident.
Are you stupid? The whole premise is that the risk of actual consequences will slow people down, which in turn reduced the risk of getting into an accident.
If traffic cameras worked to prevent traffic violations they wouldn’t be revenue streams. People would just rationally follow the traffic laws to avoid consequences. Yet, in the real world, we know it will only slow down the people who think about consequences.
Not really. Awareness of punishment does little to abate crime in general and while increasing the chances of getting caught (say by automatic cameras) does discourage crime in a meaningful way it does not prevent it.
Even so, the camera itself is not offering protection. It has no mechanism to control traffic or stop an accident.
I see this language far too often around cameras, but the fact remains they serve only to incriminate after the fact, not to prevent before the fact.
If you want protection, reduce lane sizes, make drives less straight, install speed tables, incentive alternate arterial routes, make sure alternate forms of transportation are effective and available. Hell, install the cameras even, but don’t be dissolutioned that they are what is actually doing anything.
These are all better options, but that'll require closing the road for a while and more money to spend, which have been gambled on leaving the EU from my American understanding of modern British history. Speed cameras are much cheaper, will not require road closure, and there have been studies indicating a 22% effectiveness after installation.
Speed cameras do work though. Here they are often used in specific places where people are driving too fast, especially if near schools and other places where it’s extra dangerous.
For example close to where I live there is a steep hill with a road that goes straight down and after there is a completely straight road and then a really small bridge with a bump.
Some people like to speed down the hill and basically “jump” the bridge bump. Fortunately a speed camera was installed at the bridge and they warn about it well in advance.
While you could technically redesign the road, it would be very costly compared to a camera and that road is a very small road with low traffic and private farmland (or grazing land, I don’t remember) on both sides.
Here the cameras aren’t even activated all the time just enough to achieve their goal of reducing traffic.
From 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17 to 39 per cent and fatalities by between 58 to 68 per cent within 500 metres of the cameras.
That’s a report on a single study in the UK. We cannot necessarily assume that the outcome will be the same or even similar in all jurisdictions and social driving norms. The US, for instance, doesn’t have speed cameras, but the use of red light cameras has no effect in the rate of accidents at best and an increase in the rate of accidents at worse and it’s not clear what impact the introduction of such cameras to the US would have. Meanwhile the UAE does have speed cameras, but they do nothing to limit the speed of the Emirate citizens and only the threat of harsh fines, punishment, or deportation keeps the immigrant and working population in line.
While this camera was in a location which already has cameras, the claim quoted was not that “UK cameras protect UK drivers,” but one of “Cameras [in general] protect everyone” which is simply not true. Cameras have only the mechanisms necessary to record and report, they have no mechanism by which they can divert, slow, or stop a car or pedestrian and no mechanism they can use to stop an accident.
Cameras have only the mechanisms necessary to record and report, they have no mechanism by which they can divert, slow, or stop a car or pedestrian and no mechanism they can use to stop an accident.
There is no need to stop a crash in-progress when the dangerous behavior that would have resulted in that crash never happened in the first place because of the discouraging effect of traffic cameras.
TL;DR: If you do incriminating stuff, you should be incriminated.
There are rules that every driver has to adhere to. The rules are there for protection of the drivers and the people that rely on the drivers driving safely. But the thing is: without consequences, some people show bad behaviour, one being ignoring the rules which are made to keep people safe. In order to suppress such behaviour, fines and punishment are used.
I have been driving cars for around 10 years and have gotten a fine three times. The amount I paid for it in total was roughly 10 Euros per year, which is less than 1 Euro per month. And I could have avoided having to pay this by just being mindful and acting according to the rules, which I did not.
If people feel like they should drive 120 kmh in a 50 kmh zone or even worse, without any proper justification, they do not belong behind the wheel of a car.
People would be less upset about the cameras if a) we weren’t already the most surveilled western country already. B) the fine for minor speeding was minor. as you mentioned you paid 100 euros for 3 fines. In the uk you can be fined for doing 33 in a 30, and the fine will be 100 euros per time, plus points that makes your insurance go up as well. And c) there weren’t so god slam many of them. I live in Europe now, but went back to the uk to visit friends and family and honestly there have to be about 40-50 times many cameras in the uk than in Germany!
Plus they often feel like they’re placed to catch people who drift upto 35 on the downhill section of a road that looks like it should be national speed limit anyway.
If they didn’t feel like a way for them to make money people would accept them easier.
Personally I’m a rare sunday driver so they don’t really affect me but I absolutely see how people can be annoyed by them
Agreed. If they were actually there to stop speeding and not just cash in, then they would just put average cameras on every slip road and then nobody could speed on the motorway at all. Obviously this would be hell for someone like me but I couldn’t argue with it for safety really.
Speaking from germany, 33 in a 30 wouldn’t even trip the speed cams here. Earliest infraction is basically doing 6mph over on a 30mph road, which would come at 50€ fine. We apparently also have 50 times less speed cameras and it absolutely does not stop people from fucking malding over them. They have to be designed bulletproof here now and even those still get regularly blown up. None of the points you raise change anything about it, because the core issue is people are terminally car brained
Just drive the speed limit and there's no problem. Driving massive multiple ton killing machines is already a massive privilege, if you can't adhere to simple rules of the road, you shouldnt be driving at all.
Self righteous much? You talk like it’s not possible to stray a bit over the speed limit and still be safe. Honestly imo, anyone timid enough to feel like 35mph in a 30 is genuine,seriously dangerous should not be allowed to drive. You should be confident and commanding of said multiple ton machine.
I couldn’t care less. These cameras exist entirely to make councils money. When they actually want traffic slowed they redesign the road properly with traffic islands.
Destroying these cameras is a good thing. It either fucks over council revenue sources that mainly fuck the poor while affecting the rich not one bit, or it results in getting actual redesigns of the roads properly because they do actually want that road to be safer.
This method is a little extreme though tbh we usually just chuck paint on them. This one is tall in order to make that less viable it seems.
American perspective here, who does own a bicycle and has ridden it to work and around town with my wife and had aggressive drivers either stop and threaten to murder me by running me over (threatening me in front of their infant children) and other aggressive drivers pass me in MY lane within about a foot, instead of changing lanes and giving me the lane that belongs to me…. (Both kinds of incidents happened while riding in the road, which is legal here and gives me full ownership of the lane).
But, all that being said I saw this post and thought ‘that’s cool, rage against the machine here and kick big brother’s ass. Why would I want more surveillance, especially something that’s very likely automated (and therefore untrustworthy by default)?
Lowering the speed limits, putting in speed plateaus or other methods of controlling traffic? Sure. But, I’m not big on automated surveillance state stuff.
It’s one of the few cases where I say “Why do you care if you don’t do it?” because the only purpose in this case is to catch people doing illegal things and in theory the license plate of drivers who don’t go over the speed limit shouldn’t be photographed.
They’ve also shown that they work in school zones where the limit is lower than anywhere else, so in my opinion they should at least be installed in all school zones.
Lol no the only purpose is increasing revenue via fines.
If it was a real safety deterrent there would be some immediate feedback like a text message, assuming you have your phone number in your driver's licence registration. Instead oblivious drivers will be going too fast in that stretch of road for weeks before getting tickets in the mail, and then they'll get a bunch of tickets.
The point is to hit them with the fine 5+ times not once.
It's not they don't work to decrease speeding... They do. It's that if the point was immediate deterrence there would be some feedback to the driver they just got a ticket, like the kind of immediate feedback you get when you are pulled over by a real cop.
Nothing says „against mass surveillance“ and „kick big brother‘s ass“ and „fuck the machine“ like… putting people’s phone number on their driver’s licence…
oblivious drivers will be going too fast in that stretch of road for weeks
I’m not sure, it’s been a free months since I was in the UK, but I think I remember them having these signs with numbers painted on them next to the road? Maybe just look out for those?
But, does ticketing the owner of the car, via automation, really accurately cite the offender? How does the camera know it was you, without a shadow of a doubt? You’re ticketing or citing the owner of the vehicle without them being present and stopped by an officer. Red Light cameras are just as bad. There’s no guarantee that the person who is listed as the owner was the one to drive the vehicle and commit the offense.
These cameras are a slippery slope of being cited, ticketed, charged or fined without an officer on site verifying that you were the one who actually committed the offense. Do you want to have to defend yourself halfway across town or the state/territory/region you live in when someone steals or borrows your car without permission and speeds or runs a red light? Why should you have to defend yourself at all? Why shouldn’t they use methods that ensure they’re citing the correct person, such as having an officer present to verify that the owner* was the operator and perpetrator too? “Oh, but they caught the driver’s blurry face, and it arguably looks like the owner!” But, is it? Are these cameras and automated systems, even with certified officers reviewing the video, which isn’t the case the majority of the time, infallible? How* do we know that the camera was properly calibrated that day? How do we know that it didn’t mistake XYZ other circumstance for this person erroneously?
These are a bad idea. Instead let’s build better infrastructure or assign people, real life people, to deter speeding or reckless driving. People are fallible, sure, but at least the driver is verified, the driver is cited, and then the person we verified was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the incident… can go across town to defend themselves in court. “Oh, but he sped away! We’ll never know who the driver was and now we’re just going to cite the owner, anyway!” Continued shit policing, if you’re interested, how about you investigate by going to the listed address and doing some police work.
does ticketing the owner of the car, via automation, really accurately cite the offender? How does the camera know it was you, without a shadow of a doubt? You’re ticketing or citing the owner of the vehicle without them being present and stopped by an officer. Red Light cameras are just as bad. There’s no guarantee that the person who is listed as the owner was the one to drive the vehicle and commit the offense.
In the UK, where this is, the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent a letter requiring they identify the driver at the time of the incident. Lying about it is a serious offence if caught. So, yes, it’s as accurate as can be.
Do you want to have to defend yourself halfway across town or the state/territory/region you live in when someone steals or borrows your car without permission and speeds or runs a red light?
You’d have reported your car stolen to the police. Again, lying about this is a serious offence.
“I do not recall.”, “You prove it was me.”, “Can you even prove it was me?”, “What proof do you have that it was me?”, “How do we know that your device isn’t malfunctioning and erroneously ticketing me?”, “I wasn’t speeding, but you’re citing me without an officer having been present to witness the act in person and verify it was me driving?”, “I am not required to make your case against me for you.” “You prove that I didn’t sell the car, or that it wasn’t borrowed without my knowledge, or that I failed to report it stolen.”, “oh, sorry, I forgot to report it stolen… but, I shouldn’t be required to defend myself after being cited, you should be required to prove it was me before citing me.”
Sure, you get cited in person and then have to go to court to defend yourself. But, at least they’ve established that you were the operator of the vehicle.
I do not suggest giving the government the opportunity or power to cite the owner by default without first establishing that you were the individual who committed the offense or crime. I also don’t suggest giving the power to automated camera devices that have been shown, in certain cases with certain devices, to be fallible in how they determine someone committed the crime or offense.
How about sending them warnings from the device and only citations from an actual officer in person when caught in the act? A certain number of warnings to the offending vehicle could require the owner to then present themselves to discuss the situation before citations are given. Refusing to present oneself by a certain period could then result in sending a police officer to the registered address to the vehicle to then continue their investigation… in person.
Ok, what better infrastructure do you recommend? Consider a 60mph straight road that passes through a village with shops and schools on both sides of the road, currently a 30mph speed limit through that section.
Speed plateaus are great for limiting speed. There’s a residential neighborhood in my area, two lane, 1ea either direction, that has a few of them with the gentle slopes up to a flat topped plateau and down again, not just larger speed bumps, but plateaued. You can even put cross walks on these. The speed limit in that area is 25mph in that section.
That isn’t a fix all for every* situation, but there are other options, especially other than using automated surveillance systems that are regularly questioned for being excessive, biased, fallible, and for being used by jurisdictions as free and unchecked revenue sources.
Especially when infrastructure engineering doesn’t become a revenue source that the jurisdiction then relies on, which leads them to build more, while also funneling tax payer money into third party venders who are also capable of either reviewing the data collected or viewing that data themselves. Some of these outsource to third parties to manage the traffic enforcement process, instead of having law enforcement certified and city/jurisdiction employed peace officers from being the only ones who can view or review the data.
Speed cameras aren’t hidden in the UK. They are always preceded by warning signs and the cameras themselves are in big yellow boxes that are completely obvious. You’d have to be blind to miss one.
This isn’t privacy issue. It’s just an issue for bad drivers.
Okay, so you know how it sucks to have people ignore rules and ignore you and your safety, you know how it feels to be treated like dirt by other people… and they probably do it because they do not fear any consequences for themselves and think they are in the right.
So I need to ask you: how will they ever be taught that you have rights that need to be upheld?
The same question has been asked regarding speed limits and speed cameras are one of the answers. And a pretty good one too. The article says:
The cameras in Perranarworthal were installed in March 2023 after campaigning from residents. Where the speed camera is, or was, it’s used by parents taking their children to two primary schools … it’s one of the busiest crossings in Truro and there’s been a number of quite bad accidents. For hundreds of people in that area, the speed cameras actually had a really positive effect on their quality of life. Parents feel safe letting their kids walk to school now.
What has happened here is just completely antisocial behaviour that is ruled by selfish thinking. This is not kicking big brother’s ass. This is kicking asses of people who can not defend themselves against idiots in better ways.
What would work better is installing speed plateaus that would require drivers to slow down. That’s what I’m saying. Cameras don’t do that. Especially since they’re already being targeted for vandalism. Waste more money on police surveillance state equipment, or do a cost analysis on whether not just adding speed plateaus would cause much safer driving without increasing gov’t surveillance?
Cameras have been shown to:
1., not fully address the issue by causing drops in speeding or accidents in the area,
2., to instead target lower income and marginalized communities,
3., to march further toward police surveillance states with cop cars that run all license plates in their area, with fears of AI operated cameras with facial recognition, and like I already mentioned,
4., lead to non-police or government agencies to get personal information of drivers in the area,
5., lead to the possibility of third parties without peace officer certification to police the area instead of the police in that jurisdiction,
6., cause jurisdictions to continue to put more and more of these devices in already marginalized communities to increase their tax and police revenue through increased citations.
There are a huge number of reasons that this is bad or could be bad. But, what’s significantly easier is traffic engineering, which doesn’t lead to increased police surveillance states and unfair ticketing.
But, hey. If this community couldn’t be bothered to have speed bumps, or specifically speed plateaus, put in… because it would cause normal drivers the inconvenience of driving up and over them… and they’d rather have cameras put in. 🤷♂️
But, I guess some people there don’t feel the same as them.
I’m a car driver and enthusiast and I’ll be the first one to ask… Why the fuck can my car reach 250kph if the highest speed limit in my country is 110kph???
Edit: If you think I’m complaining that I can’t go faster then you understood the message wrong
Driving fast in the right circumstances is a blast, no one is denying that. E.g., doing a track day, or even road racing on a closed course. But it’s not the same as driving in public day-to-day. Here in the US southwest, in order to drive a road race in the 150 mph/250 kph class, you need a 5 point harness, fire suppression system, helmet and HANS device.
You simply don’t need to go that fast on a daily basis. It’s not safe for you, without all the above precautions, and it’s not safe for others around you.
Auto manufacturers use the top speeds/acceleration/torque stats for marketing. Drivers imagine they will have fun going that fast (see above, they can!), they perceive value in having “better stats”, so the market rewards manufacturers to keep selling daily-driver cars that have unrealistic top speeds. Combine that with the fact that most people can’t afford to have a separate “fun” car, or access to safe locations for motor sports, and we end up seeing people trying to have the fun they imagined on our shared public roadways, which is downright dangerous for everyone.
Get your kicks on the track. Your car’s top speed does not belong on public roads.
Exactly! I think discussions have started to have speed limiters on new cars sold in Canada and it’s perfectly logical. Why let manufacturers sell cars that can reach speeds that will make people face criminal charges if they get caught? It’s ridiculous enough that we’re switching to electric cars with 0-100kph under 7 seconds and no one bats an eye… The next few decades will be interesting, imagine all the new drivers accidently launching from stop signs in a fairly basic car that does 0-100 in 6 seconds…
I think the best thing I ever did was learn on a 250cc. It’s way harder to wreck your day or get yourself killed when you inevitably grab a bit too much throttle as a complete newbie. I would even encourage people to learn on a 125cc or even 50cc. The basics are the basics and you can pick those up on a bike with less than 10hp just as easily if not more easily than a bike with 100+hp.
It would be amazing to see government mandated limiters in cars, in general, and not just for learners.
I know that a lot of people don’t agree with that but the public has proved they are incapable of driving within reasonable limits. No one needs a car that can go the speeds that cars are capable of going. It’s totally possible to setup a system that enforces the limit only on public roads so that people could still take their cars to the track. We very much have the technology.
It blows my mind that the general public is completely accepting of things like smartphone OSes that can spy on their every move and log their every detail yet if you mention limiters on cars all of the sudden they become staunch advocates for personal freedoms. The hypocrisy blows my mind.
Maybe… because it is dangerous to drive that fast when other people are around? Why don’t you just buy a car that can only go as fast as the highest speed limit?
Huh? What part of my message made you think I drive over the speed limit? I’m clearly saying that it’s ridiculous that cars are sold without speed limiters!
The second sentence can be read like you’re complaining you can only go 110 while your car could go 250, and I guess a lot of people understood it this way.
Add comment