You must log in or register to comment.
I bet they’re fine with Flock cameras, though…
To all the people happy about the possible ban, multiple studies have shown that speed cameras reduce accidents and fatalities full stop, that should be enough to advocate for them.
A camera shouldn’t be enforcing the law
Would you rather cops be doing speeding traffic stops then? Because as we’ve seen that leads to a lot of deaths for POC. Also having cops do speeding enforcement opens the door for a lot of selective enforcement which is unfair for certain groups. Whether you like it or not speed limits need to be enforced for the safety of everyone on the road and cameras can do just as good a job as cops without the possibility of someone getting shot.
This is just some revenue generating scheme for third parties
Ideally the money would be going back into the city’s budget, and this is mandated in many jurisdictions. Even if all the money is going to a third party though it’s still a positive, because again these cameras are reducing accidents and saving lives. If someone is making money off saving lives that’s not really a problem if it’s only taking money from drivers who choose drive recklessly.
This is a problem with the roads, they need to be narrower, more trees etc. to subconsciously slow people down
Ideally yes, roads should be narrower and better designed, but rebuilding a road costs money, which comes from taxes. Most of those people paying taxes aren’t speeding so they’re being forced to pay for a road redesign for people who are too lazy to check their speedometer, it’s even more unfair for non drivers who are forced to pay for their safety. Cameras are cost neutral and puts the burden of reckless driving on reckless drivers.
This is just a scheme to give data to the cops and advance the surveillance state
Cops don’t need a scheme to put up cameras wherever they want. Even if this ban passes it’s likely they’ll leave the cameras up but turn off the speeding and just have them collect license plate numbers of everyone who passes by. At least with speed enforcement people get some actual safety out of the surveillance state.
The less of these the better. They’re just there to help shitty third parties make passive income.
So the problem are the third parties, not the cameras.
In my area 100% of the revnue generated by speed cameras went to roadway safety improvements like speed bumps, lane narrowing bollards, and improved crossings. People still protested them and our provincial leader (who claims to be against big government over reach) stepped in and told every municipality that they cannot make these decisions on their own and banned them. Something about people thinking they were unfair, unsafe etc. All bullshit excuses, people are selfish will trade a better travel time against safety.
They are the same thing
So many public cameras are selling access to law enforcement, in place of actually getting a warrant.
The fewer, the better.Speed cameras are often installed with the primary purpose of capturing revenue, with no attention paid to road design, signage, or communication. The revenue collected is frequently funnelled to a private company, and the community doesn’t see a benefit.
This is the result.
I think cameras have a lot of potential but first - make it uncomfortable to speed, and clearly sign and alert speeders. I don’t like cars in urban settings but work in the world you have and all that
Also, maybe the USA should implement a speedometer accuracy law. When people get a ticket for 2mph over and their speedometer has no guarantee of accuracy, the manufacturer should see the fine. The NHTSA doesn’t require any accuracy for private vehicles and the SAE recommends +/-4mph which is ludicrous.
In my area, the cameras revnue was used to make those roadway improvements. IMO its a good middle ground. Updating roads to safer standards is a massive financial commitment & this ensure people speeding front more of that bill. Speeders rack up our tax dollars in enforcement costs and emergency services costs like healthcare which is less money to spend on road safety. Your city making just 1 of their stroads safer would completely decimate an annual budget and they’d still have a lot more roads to improve.
Certainly there is a chicken vs egg financial challenge, but when antagonizing drivers ends public support, and they’re banned (as in TFA), now there’s no road safety improvements.
People want to deny it, but the cameras themselves were a safety improvement. They reduced speed. Maybe not for every single car but certainly enough to make a statistical difference. The cameras my areas used were mobile and the speed reduction would linger for weeks to months after the camera had moved.
That is the way to do it!
Now let us hope that those people are educated on the scam that are traffic cameras.I missed the ‘ban’ in the title at first. I’m disappointed
Yeah, these things suck. Computers shouldn’t be able to accuse people of crimes.
Also, in Chicago at least, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these in a “nice” neighborhood. They’re only in the low-income neighborhoods where the speed limit is at least 10 MPH lower than the road design would suggest it should be.
Next will be ban the pedestrians.
