Photo radar is becoming increasingly common. That doesn’t make it any less infuriating
-
A week ago we were on a 400km drive. In that time there were 2 completely separate fatal accidents along our route. Both were caused by excessive speeding. Not just 10 or 20km over the speed limit but excessive. One was figured to be going more than double the speed limit. One of the assholes took another innocent driver with them. I have changed by opinion on speed cameras and red light cameras because even on city streets so many drivers think that whatever speed they want to do is ok and they don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else on the road. Unless drivers improve, I think every technological means necessary should be used to tackle them.
I’m lucky. I’ve never seen a fatal accident.
Fatalities are more likely at higher speeds. Training drivers to slow down and drive at a reasonable speed seems like a really good idea.
-
Photoradar and red light cameras are just neoliberal regressive bullshit. There is clearly a structural problem because most people speed, roads are hazardous to cyclists and unpleasant for pedestrians, intersections are dangerous for everyone.
Photoradar and red light cameras ADMIT there is a structural problem, but decided the solution is individual actions.
Traffic deaths, speeding, dangerous intersections, bicycle infrastructure, active and public transit, human friendly streets, these are ALL solved problems. Traffic engineers have been writing out the solutions since the 70’s and the municipalities and countries who have begun implementing these solutions have seen MASSIVE improvements on all fronts.
The solution is increasing taxes on the wealthy so we can build proper, safe, enjoyable human scale infrastructure. Red light cameras and speeding cameras play no role in the solution. You can’t fix structural problems through individual action, this is just the semi-progressive neoliberal version “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”.
I totally get the car hate, and the vitriol towards unsafe drivers. But don’t fall down the trap of blaming individuals for the failures of the system
We can do both. Rebuilding roads to support active transit is going to take a lot of time and money. In the meantime, enforcing existing speed limits makes a lot of sense.
-
These up-eds usually complain that photo radar would be fine if the radar worked properly. This one doesn’t even do that. It just complains that speed limits aren’t fair and now drivers have to change their behavior. jfc
It is true that drivers can avoid such tickets by sticking to the posted speed limits, but it is also true that drivers are hardly ever expected to strictly observe those limits.
…
It’s like the generally accepted contract between drivers and police – just drive at a reasonable speed and you’ll be fine – has been broken.
Opinion: Photo radar is becoming increasingly common. That doesn’t make it any less infuriating
The question of fairness is what makes photo radar so controversial
The Globe and Mail (www.theglobeandmail.com)
If the speed limit is too low then it should be fixed. Non-enforcement is stupid.
Let the robot do the robot’s job instead of having expensive police officers arbitrarily pull over unlucky losers to sit on dangerous shoulders and hope that nobody will accidentally kill the cop or the speeder.
-
Alberta made it so photo radar is now only allowed in school zones and construction sites
Lol conservatives being conservatives “we want to be tough on law breakers except for the ones who break the laws that I break”.
-
We can do both. Rebuilding roads to support active transit is going to take a lot of time and money. In the meantime, enforcing existing speed limits makes a lot of sense.
Not really. Speeding isn’t people not caring to go the right speed. If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit.
Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.
Most people HAVE to drive to live, because of no public infrastructure and poor city planning.
It’s a STRUCTURAL problem. You can’t solve structural problems through individual actions. It’s like asking minorities to work harder as the solution to equality. Obama was able to become president so it’s got to be possible. It’s a distraction from dealing with systemic racism and poverty.
That’s basically the reason neoliberalism leads to neofascism. A neoliberal is just someone who admits there are structural problems but thinks collective/systematic solutions are “too extreme” and the problem can be solved if everyone just behaves the right way every time.
Individual solutions don’t solve structural problems.
-
Photo radar is a cash grab. Have cops pull people over it’s much more effective at changing behaviour. And really shitty drivers actually loose their license so they get off the road.
All photo radar does is slow people down for the 100’s of meters by the site then they speed up.
Photo radar is a cash grab.
Yeah fuck those drivers and let’s grab their cash at least up until we can grab their licenses.
Have cops pull people over it’s much more effective at changing behaviour.
If only we had actual data analyzed by real researches out there instead of basing ourselves on talk radio bullshit like this
-
You got a source that cameras are randonly generating finea? Ive got 1 ticket from a camera in my life, my boss is a rampant speeder and he has gotten dozens. This seems more behavioral than random.
-
You got a source that cameras are randonly generating finea? Ive got 1 ticket from a camera in my life, my boss is a rampant speeder and he has gotten dozens. This seems more behavioral than random.
Obviously one’s behaviour has some influence, much like my grandma’s habit of playing the slot machines for hours on end means she’s seen more payouts from them than I ever will, and my habit of not driving at all means I don’t get many photo radar tickets. But one of the infuriating things about them is that there’s no way to know. Are not enough people speeding? Maybe the city will tune them to be super-sensitive to keep up their revenue stream. Did they make an error? Was it not you driving? Do you have some other excuse that would make a human cop say “oh, all right then, carry on?” Do they use the data collected to track people’s movements or any other purposes? It isn’t easy to find out. Automated law enforcement sucks, having surveillance cameras everywhere was a bad idea, speeding is already over-enforced relative to other traffic laws, and making law enforcement more inscrutable and arbitrary is not the best path to improving society.
-
speeding is already over enforced
Hard disagree right there. Do the limit on any major road andyou’ll find you’re slower than the flow of traffic.
-
speeding is already over enforced
Hard disagree right there. Do the limit on any major road andyou’ll find you’re slower than the flow of traffic.
Your logic and/or comprehension are poor and your quickness to downvote someone for disagreeing is contemptible. Plonk
-
A week ago we were on a 400km drive. In that time there were 2 completely separate fatal accidents along our route. Both were caused by excessive speeding. Not just 10 or 20km over the speed limit but excessive. One was figured to be going more than double the speed limit. One of the assholes took another innocent driver with them. I have changed by opinion on speed cameras and red light cameras because even on city streets so many drivers think that whatever speed they want to do is ok and they don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else on the road. Unless drivers improve, I think every technological means necessary should be used to tackle them.
I’m not sure drivers can even improve, that would mean setting higher requirements to get and keep your driver’s license, and I don’t ever see the automobile lobbies or car-centric society adhering to such changes.
-
The obvious solution is just get rid of driving.
Or, you know, just be aware of the current speed limit and respect it?
As pointed out by another here, the problem is structural, and individual action cannot be the answer here.
-
You were asked for a source but continued your tinfoil hat-worthy drivel, problem here is on you not them.
-
As pointed out by another here, the problem is structural, and individual action cannot be the answer here.
Sure, I’m all for getting rid of individual cars for good, or fixing the issues mentioned in the comment you linked. In the meantime, the author of the article can apply my method to fix his problem.
-
If the speed limit is too low then it should be fixed. Non-enforcement is stupid.
Let the robot do the robot’s job instead of having expensive police officers arbitrarily pull over unlucky losers to sit on dangerous shoulders and hope that nobody will accidentally kill the cop or the speeder.
Most limits are not too low. Drivers are impatient and road design makes it feel too slow for the road design.
-
Not really. Speeding isn’t people not caring to go the right speed. If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit.
Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.
Most people HAVE to drive to live, because of no public infrastructure and poor city planning.
It’s a STRUCTURAL problem. You can’t solve structural problems through individual actions. It’s like asking minorities to work harder as the solution to equality. Obama was able to become president so it’s got to be possible. It’s a distraction from dealing with systemic racism and poverty.
That’s basically the reason neoliberalism leads to neofascism. A neoliberal is just someone who admits there are structural problems but thinks collective/systematic solutions are “too extreme” and the problem can be solved if everyone just behaves the right way every time.
Individual solutions don’t solve structural problems.
If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit. Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.
I don’t disagree, but the problem is that people are terrible judges of how fast they can react and terrible judges of risk. Tailgating is a major cause of vehicle accidents, and is purely an individual failing. Leaving enough space between the car in front of you and yourself (a well known guideline of 3s in clear weather) is your responsibility and yours alone. Don’t care if you’re tired, angry, emotional, whatever. If you are getting behind the wheel of a 2+ tonne machine, you need to be responsible for that. Unfortunately most people aren’t.
We can argue and disagree on the factors at play, but fundamentally, I don’t agree with your thought process where ALL responsibility is offloaded from the individual to a large, faceless entity of ‘society’. For sure, many people are not being set up to succeed and be safe while driving, and most shouldn’t need to drive at all. I agree - push more bike lanes, push more transit, get trains to actually run alongside major highways to remove single-car commuting vehicles that destroy our environment.
But how can you be claiming that any action taken to slow the deaths and injuries happening by enforcing speed limits is counterproductive action?
40% of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes are 16-24 years old. 75% of pedestrian fatalities occured on urban, high density roads like those Ontario is in the middle of putting speeding cameras onto. When you consider that pedestrians hit at ~30km/hr has a 5% chance of death, while those hit at 45km/hr has a 45%, and those hit at 60km/hr are at 85% chance of death, there is a very serious argument to be made to enforce 40 and 50km/hr speed limits. By slowing people from 70km/hr to 50km/hr, we can drastically improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the road or sidewalks. In community safety zones with 40km/hr speed limits, enforcing them can increase chance of survival by 40%. Add into that the enormous benefit we would see from a healthcare standpoint when you no longer need to provide care (or provide as serious of care) for accident victims?
How can you be arguing AGAINST speed cameras instead of calling for their implementation everywhere and demanding that funding be reallocated for decarbonization and street redesign? The funding those can pull in is enormous, and as compliance increases, street reconstruction can provide the further increase in fatality reduction.
https://www.radarsign.com/traffic-calming-stats/ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811090
-
If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit. Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.
I don’t disagree, but the problem is that people are terrible judges of how fast they can react and terrible judges of risk. Tailgating is a major cause of vehicle accidents, and is purely an individual failing. Leaving enough space between the car in front of you and yourself (a well known guideline of 3s in clear weather) is your responsibility and yours alone. Don’t care if you’re tired, angry, emotional, whatever. If you are getting behind the wheel of a 2+ tonne machine, you need to be responsible for that. Unfortunately most people aren’t.
We can argue and disagree on the factors at play, but fundamentally, I don’t agree with your thought process where ALL responsibility is offloaded from the individual to a large, faceless entity of ‘society’. For sure, many people are not being set up to succeed and be safe while driving, and most shouldn’t need to drive at all. I agree - push more bike lanes, push more transit, get trains to actually run alongside major highways to remove single-car commuting vehicles that destroy our environment.
But how can you be claiming that any action taken to slow the deaths and injuries happening by enforcing speed limits is counterproductive action?
40% of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes are 16-24 years old. 75% of pedestrian fatalities occured on urban, high density roads like those Ontario is in the middle of putting speeding cameras onto. When you consider that pedestrians hit at ~30km/hr has a 5% chance of death, while those hit at 45km/hr has a 45%, and those hit at 60km/hr are at 85% chance of death, there is a very serious argument to be made to enforce 40 and 50km/hr speed limits. By slowing people from 70km/hr to 50km/hr, we can drastically improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the road or sidewalks. In community safety zones with 40km/hr speed limits, enforcing them can increase chance of survival by 40%. Add into that the enormous benefit we would see from a healthcare standpoint when you no longer need to provide care (or provide as serious of care) for accident victims?
How can you be arguing AGAINST speed cameras instead of calling for their implementation everywhere and demanding that funding be reallocated for decarbonization and street redesign? The funding those can pull in is enormous, and as compliance increases, street reconstruction can provide the further increase in fatality reduction.
https://www.radarsign.com/traffic-calming-stats/ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811090
Incredibly well put. Yea sure our roads are designed like shit and speed cameras are a bit of a bandaid solution, but at least they can make a bit of an impact while also generating revenue which hopefully helps rehabilitate our roads to a safer standard. Even the safest designed road will still need some kind of speed enforcement.
-
Incredibly well put. Yea sure our roads are designed like shit and speed cameras are a bit of a bandaid solution, but at least they can make a bit of an impact while also generating revenue which hopefully helps rehabilitate our roads to a safer standard. Even the safest designed road will still need some kind of speed enforcement.
Revenue generation is an inherent problem though. In the US we are seeing a rapidly growing issue where police are pressed to to increase the amount of money taken in by fines at any cost. We are now seeing that the majority of local governments are more than 1/4 funded by citations, and that the cases of abuses of power, and other civil rights violations, are on the rise, specifically in the name of increasing citations.
-
If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit. Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.
I don’t disagree, but the problem is that people are terrible judges of how fast they can react and terrible judges of risk. Tailgating is a major cause of vehicle accidents, and is purely an individual failing. Leaving enough space between the car in front of you and yourself (a well known guideline of 3s in clear weather) is your responsibility and yours alone. Don’t care if you’re tired, angry, emotional, whatever. If you are getting behind the wheel of a 2+ tonne machine, you need to be responsible for that. Unfortunately most people aren’t.
We can argue and disagree on the factors at play, but fundamentally, I don’t agree with your thought process where ALL responsibility is offloaded from the individual to a large, faceless entity of ‘society’. For sure, many people are not being set up to succeed and be safe while driving, and most shouldn’t need to drive at all. I agree - push more bike lanes, push more transit, get trains to actually run alongside major highways to remove single-car commuting vehicles that destroy our environment.
But how can you be claiming that any action taken to slow the deaths and injuries happening by enforcing speed limits is counterproductive action?
40% of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes are 16-24 years old. 75% of pedestrian fatalities occured on urban, high density roads like those Ontario is in the middle of putting speeding cameras onto. When you consider that pedestrians hit at ~30km/hr has a 5% chance of death, while those hit at 45km/hr has a 45%, and those hit at 60km/hr are at 85% chance of death, there is a very serious argument to be made to enforce 40 and 50km/hr speed limits. By slowing people from 70km/hr to 50km/hr, we can drastically improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the road or sidewalks. In community safety zones with 40km/hr speed limits, enforcing them can increase chance of survival by 40%. Add into that the enormous benefit we would see from a healthcare standpoint when you no longer need to provide care (or provide as serious of care) for accident victims?
How can you be arguing AGAINST speed cameras instead of calling for their implementation everywhere and demanding that funding be reallocated for decarbonization and street redesign? The funding those can pull in is enormous, and as compliance increases, street reconstruction can provide the further increase in fatality reduction.
https://www.radarsign.com/traffic-calming-stats/ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811090
I understand we disagree. I’m not offloading responsibility of specific incidents to the system. Drivers are still responsible for their actions.
Revenue from traffic cameras goes to mostly the police, not for making roads safer. If we made roads and public transit better we wouldn’t need the cameras so they’re temporary at best.
As far as safety goes, the data I’ve seen shows they initially work, then only for about 100m. Red light cameras are the same, they create rear end collisions due to unsafe breaking from someone who should have used the orange light, but was afraid of a ticket.
What I’m saying is we have a systemic problem with known structural solutions. Any initiative that doesn’t push for the structural solutions is just prolonging the status quo.
Then when you factor the human/political element it’s even worse. These cameras create real frustration and resentment among a large portion of the population. These are just people trying to work and access important services. We want them to do it without driving, and if they do drive they should be driving on streets and roads instead of unsafe stroads. When we urbanists push for cameras instead of structural reforms, then urbanism will will get lumped into that frustration and we get more carbrained politicians that make the situation worse for everyone not in an SUV.
I think we both agree on the end goal, so I don’t really want to argue, I’m just afraid that this path leads us to a worse outcome once you factor in human emotions and politics.
-
Revenue generation is an inherent problem though. In the US we are seeing a rapidly growing issue where police are pressed to to increase the amount of money taken in by fines at any cost. We are now seeing that the majority of local governments are more than 1/4 funded by citations, and that the cases of abuses of power, and other civil rights violations, are on the rise, specifically in the name of increasing citations.
How is a speed camera going to abuse its power and hand out wrongful convictions?
