It's insane the lengths that some people will go to save a few seconds on their commute, while also endangering others.

  • @unmagical@lemmy.ml
    hexbear
    46
    4 months ago

    I don't understand why these people can't see the cameras are there to protect everyone - including drivers.

    Maybe because cameras can't protect anyone. They gather evidence for incrimination, not prevention.

    • @mondoman712@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      hexbear
      25
      4 months ago

      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.

      https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2017/10-October-2017/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-and-traffic-deaths-according-to-new-study

      • @unmagical@lemmy.ml
        hexbear
        3
        4 months ago

        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.

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          hexbear
          7
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

        • @mondoman712@lemmy.ml
          hexagon
          hexbear
          7
          4 months ago

          The cameras in question are on the UK, and cameras change behaviour because they enforce rules, as the study shows.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          hexbear
          7
          4 months ago

          The US, for instance, doesn't have speed cameras

          That's just straight up wrong.

    • @CommodoreSixtyFour_@discuss.tchncs.de
      hexbear
      7
      4 months ago

      That is a bad take.

      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.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        hexbear
        3
        4 months ago

        TL;DR: If you do incriminating stuff, you should be incriminated.

        Boot tasty.

        • @CommodoreSixtyFour_@discuss.tchncs.de
          hexbear
          1
          4 months ago

          Oh, yeah... so if you do incriminating stuff, say... acting in a way that directly leads to people being hurt, maimed and / or traumatized, you should just get a pat on the back. I will just have to presume that this is what you are saying.

          • Awoo [she/her]
            hexbear
            1
            4 months ago

            acting in a way that directly leads to people being hurt, maimed and / or traumatized

            If that's your benchmark then 90% of people should be considered criminal.

            Out of interest do you support Israel and/or the continuation of the war in Ukraine or do you support ceasefires?

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          hexbear
          1
          4 months ago

          It's a bad TL;DR but they do lay out why it's illegal

          • Awoo [she/her]
            hexbear
            3
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.

      • @Saff@lemmy.ml
        hexbear
        1
        4 months ago

        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!

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          hexbear
          3
          4 months ago

          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

    • wopazoo [he/him]
      hexbear
      6
      4 months ago

      Do you not feel discouraged from speeding or running red lights when there are traffic enforcement cameras watching?