hoping this catches on, pretty please CA…
i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.
I’ve lived in places with speed cameras all my life… if you’re worried, just don’t speed?
Like, I don’t want to be all “don’t break the law and you won’t have to worry (:” but speeding is really easy to not do, especially in places where cameras are well signposted or static.
A little while back, I suddenly had to start travelling on a route that had a lot of speed cameras. It’s a particularly dangerous road, so I know there’s good reason for them to be there, but I had to get myself out of the habit of speeding. Previously I tended to just drive whatever speed I felt was appropriate for the road.
So I invented a game called Speed. As you’re driving, you imagine that there is a bomb in your car, and it will explode if you go over the speed limit. You win when you get to your destination without exploding. The speed cameras are the villains, and as you glide past them at the speed limit, you’re welcome to taunt them with the fact that they haven’t managed to kill you. Police with mobile speed cameras can also be taunted this way, as long as the car windows are closed, for obvious reasons.
Playing this for about 6 months built a really good habit, and I’m honestly a better, safer driver because of it. I’m also a more patient driver, and I enjoy driving more now because I’m not rushing, trying to be as fast as possible all the time. 10/10, would recommend.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English3•11 months ago
if you’re worried, just don’t speed?
If someone is aggressively tailgating you, you don’t have a choice. You can either speed and try to get out of his way, or be hit.
Cameras don’t care about this sort of context. They don’t see a criminal and a victim. They see two criminals.
We implemented speed cameras in my province in Canada 20 years ago, and the government that implemented them got thrown out because the opposition party offered to get rid of them.
People REALLY hate them. Worse than anything else I’ve ever seen people hate.
People wanna be able to drive like assholes.
Governments want to set speed limits to be arbitrarily low, more like
i have good news because its not set at the speed limit but 11 over, so you only get the ticket for recklessly speeding. maybe the speed limits get lowered so people arent driving 55 next to sidewalks. is that really such a big deal?
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English3•11 months ago
These sorts of devices give the government a perverse incentive to set speed limits unreasonably low—50 on a freeway, for example—in order to generate revenue through what amounts to highway robbery.
You are fortunate to live in a jurisdiction where the government is not so crooked, but realize that many jurisdictions are not like yours.
I can’t really say I’ve ever seen that happening, but I don’t live in LA. Where I live the limits are all between 20 and 30. 55 is pretty crazy. Pretty sure our freeways don’t even have limits higher than that.
I must certainly hope this does not pass. CA already nullified red light cameras, what’s the point of relearning this lesson?
why not? CA has struggled with record levels of traffic injury and death in recent years.
Because in the end, matures like these don’t actually reduce the speeding or accidents. The cases often get caught up in court and eventually dismissed or fines reduced. In the end, it costs the tax payers more $ on both ends and all the areas needed were speed bumps.
Man I hope not. We don’t need MORE surveillance of our daily lives.
So, two concerns with this.
-
Hasn’t it been shown the cameras actually increase accident rates? Basically it makes people drive less predictably, by slowly really quickly when they realize there’s a camera. I could be thinking of red light cameras, rather than speed cameras but I thought it was both.
-
I’m pretty sure they aren’t enforceable? If someone doesn’t want to pay one it’s super easy to get out of. Which ends up meaning that the people who need be held accountable, aren’t. And the people that are decent drivers, continue to be decent drivers.
Hasn’t it been shown the cameras actually increase accident rates?
Most studies find that cameras decrease accident rates: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract
Theoretically, it might cause drivers to drive more unpredictably, but I’d expect that those are typically rear-end colissions as drivers slam their brakes to try to avoid a ticket. Those are the safest type of traffic incident and I’d happily trade a pedestrian getting hit for a couple rear-endings.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•11 months ago
I’d happily trade a pedestrian getting hit for a couple rear-endings.
In other words, you’re okay with creating more traffic accidents, as long as the victims belong to a group that you find acceptable.
In other words, I’m okay with causing minor financial burden to prevent serious injury or death.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•11 months ago
Minor? The financial burden of your car getting totaled and your spine getting damaged can easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars! And that’s assuming the impact doesn’t kill or paralyze you.
In 2021, there were 6,100 fatal crashes with a pedestrian, of 120,000 total crashes that resulted in injury or fatality. This is a fatality rate of arout 5%. Rear end crashes had 2900 fatal crashes out of ~3.3 million that resulted in injury or fatality. This is a fatality rate of around 0.08%.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/type-of-crash/
This heavily implies that crashes involving pedestrians are far more dangerous than rear-endings, as common sense would suggest.
So I would definitely exchange one pedestrian incident for several rear endings, as the potential harm is less for each rear-ending than for each pedestrian strike.
Compared to getting hit by a car as a pedestrian? C’mon now.
Besides, it’s only fair for the person choosing to move at a speed that’s more likely to cause injury to accept the risk inherent in their action, rather than shifting it onto an innocent bystander whose chosen velocity is unlikely to do physical damage. (Not just cars. I feel this way about bikes too. Walking is the standard, if you’re going faster on purpose, you bear responsibility for that.)
On the second point:
Red light cameras seem to work and are enforceable just fine. These would be no different.
I’m pretty sure they aren’t enforceable? If someone doesn’t want to pay one it’s super easy to get out of. Which ends up meaning that the people who need be held accountable, aren’t. And the people that are decent drivers, continue to be decent drivers
The problem is that any ticket that is issued solely based on a camera (like speeding or red light cameras) can normally only detect the car by its plates, while tickets are normally written against a driver. In some states, this means that points can’t be assessed, and fines punish the poor more than the rich. In others, all the car owner has to do is submit an affidavit saying “I wasn’t driving” to get out of it. If the owner is lying, that’s perjury, of course. But who will bother checking into it?
A camera that is coupled with a law enforcement presence is much more enforceable, because you pull the car over and issue the ticket to the driver right there, using the camera data as proof.
Why would we want to accept more constant surveillance if it can’t even cut cop costs?
Hmm. When my boyfriend drove under a toll camera in my car, I called to explain that I wasn’t the one driving at the time. The lady on the line asked if the vehicle was stolen, when I said no, she said I had to pay the fine and if I didn’t, I may not be able to register my vehicle. Naturally, I paid the fine.
We have some precedent with red light cameras and the like repeatedly being held up. Courts are equipped to handle bad actors and if that becomes an actual problem, they’re not going to just shrug if someone has 25 speeding violations that they’re not paying. I could see this working once or twice, but if you’re driving past that camera every day, it’ll be a good idea to start obeying the law sooner rather than later.
A toll is a more legitimate thing to “bill” to a car, though. The car was present, after all, and someone ought to pay. Now that tollbooths are going away, it’s logical to bill whoever the car is registered to. (And, if the toll is not paid, it’s the car that is “punished” by being ineligible to be registered, not the driver through fines or points).
If your boyfriend was speeding, though, and caught on camera, but the court said you were speeding instead, would you have just taken the fine for that, knowing it would also affect your insurance? I doubt it.
You’re correct that people can only “get away” with stunts like I mentioned a limited number of times, particularly if they go in front of the same judge multiple times. But it’s also a fact that if law enforcement can’t prove you were the one driving, theres only so much they can do.
Regarding #1, the problem lies in the implementation of the cameras. I think the idea of average speed cameras are interesting. Basically, just have multiple cameras and use the time a driver takes to get from one to the other to calculate their average speed. This way you can’t game it by slowing down at specific points.
And it seems to be a theoretical claim that people will slam on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket, causing accidents. But studies show that speed cameras do in fact reduce accident rates:
Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months ago
It doesn’t, however, protect innocent people from being fined for accelerating to get away from someone aggressively tailgating them. Punishing innocent people is not acceptable.
accelerating because someone is tailgating you is not safe. the only safe response is to get away from them by changing lanes or pulling off the road. if it’s impossible to move out of their way, gradually slow down. the faster you’re both moving, the harder it is to avoid a crash and the worse a crash will be.
The threshold doesn’t need to be the exact speed limit, I’m sure there’s some wiggle room. How innocent is the other driver in this case though? Even if there’s another car doing it too they are still driving over the speed limit.
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) 2•11 months ago
That’s not a solution. Drivers must, above all else, drive safely and not collide with anything. If, for whatever reason, the safest course of action involves exceeding the speed limit (or some other hidden threshold, like you’re talking about), then it is both wrong and dangerous to punish them for doing so.
What about all the other pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers who are on that road? Are they safer because now there are two drivers speeding instead of one? The benefits of reducing vehicle speeds on crash fatality and frequency are outlined in the article. It sounds like you’re saying that “breaking the speed limit without punishment” is a tool drivers need to have in their toolbox to drive safely, but right now we give them that tool and vehicles speeds are out of control and the traffic death statistics are unacceptable.
https://tripnet.org/reports/traffic-safety-california-news-release-06-21-2023/
-
- argv_minus_one ( @argv_minus_one@beehaw.org ) English3•11 months ago
“We’re having too many car accidents. I know! Let’s deploy devices that’ll cause more car accidents! What could possibly go wrong?!” —Californian legislators
You might be surprised to know that speed cameras do not increase accident rates, but decrease them.
Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract