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
    ·
    11 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
      ·
      11 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
        ·
        11 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.

        • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
          hexagon
          ·
          11 months ago

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

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

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

          That's just straight up wrong.

    • CommodoreSixtyFour_@discuss.tchncs.de
      ·
      11 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]
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        Boot tasty.

        • CommodoreSixtyFour_@discuss.tchncs.de
          ·
          10 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]
            ·
            10 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]
          ·
          11 months ago

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

          • Awoo [she/her]
            ·
            edit-2
            11 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
        ·
        11 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]
          ·
          11 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]
      ·
      11 months ago

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

  • Rom [he/him]
    ·
    11 months ago

    If people are driving too fast on a road then the road is badly designed. Speed cameras are a bandage covering up the problem of shit infrastructure.

    • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • wopazoo [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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%.

      • Rom [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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 simply won't speed, rendering speed cameras unnecessary. If you see a speed bump ahead of you aren't you going slow down?

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Scrollone@feddit.it
            ·
            11 months ago

            It's not like that in every country. For example, speed cameras in Italy can't be placed in 30 km/h zones

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            ·
            11 months ago

            They can also be used to kickback to the politician and the lobbyist who work for the company that profits from them.

            • wopazoo [he/him]
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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?

                • wopazoo [he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Lol the absolute state of speed camera opposers

                  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.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                    • wopazoo [he/him]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      11 months ago

                      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).

                      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        11 months ago

                        Absolutely.

                        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.

                        • wopazoo [he/him]
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          11 months ago

                          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.

                          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                            ·
                            11 months ago

                            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 😅

            • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
              hexagon
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

    • 7bicycles [he/him]
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean so what's to be done then. I agree on "redesign pretty much every street or road" but like, until then, it's just a great big free for all?

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ah yes, let's just close all the roads in the country until we get that sorted out, great idea.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • 7bicycles [he/him]
              ·
              11 months ago

              Why not?

              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?

                • 7bicycles [he/him]
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  just roads that "require" speed cameras.

                  So when's that the case or not

                • wopazoo [he/him]
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I'm sure your plan will be popular with the motoring public that anti speed camera rhetoric is trying to appeal to.

  • Awoo [she/her]
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Lmao cutting down speed cameras is praxis. Jog on. These things are just there to make local councils money.

    When they actually want a slower road they put speed bumps or traffic islands on it.

    • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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

        Show

        • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
          hexagon
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Awoo [she/her]
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            It literally says in this article that one of the cameras mentioned has clocked 17,000 people. Of course they have money to do it. 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.

            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.

            • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
              hexagon
              ·
              10 months ago

              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).

              And please don't pretend like you know my life.

              • Awoo [she/her]
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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.

                  • Awoo [she/her]
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Ok so you finally agree that some poor people suffer because of this and that there is an alternative that exists where no poor people suffer at all?

                    Doing the alternative is good and taking action that leads to the alternative is good.

                    • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
                      hexagon
                      ·
                      10 months ago

                      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.

                      • Awoo [she/her]
                        ·
                        10 months ago

                        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.

                        • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
                          hexagon
                          ·
                          10 months ago

                          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.

                          • Awoo [she/her]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            10 months ago

                            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?

                            • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
                              hexagon
                              ·
                              10 months ago

                              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.

                              • Awoo [she/her]
                                ·
                                edit-2
                                10 months ago

                                Ay that's a surprise at least.

                                You're not being realistic though. Will continue congratulating the gang for cutting these down, fairly sure some of the ycl lads have done a few, dunno about these specific ones though.

            • 7bicycles [he/him]
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

          • Awoo [she/her]
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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).

            • 7bicycles [he/him]
              ·
              10 months ago

              The process and length of time it takes for either option are practically the same.

              Sure, but you're arguing for like instant speed camera abolishment or destruction here, aye?

              Not to mention a traffic island costs like £3k while a camera costs £85k (guess why they pick the camera despite the price).

              Dunno if you got to that one already but I've did a reply pointing out where you're a bit off there

              • Awoo [she/her]
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Sure, but you're arguing for like instant speed camera abolishment or destruction here, aye?

                As a means of discouraging their construction in the first place and the harm they do to the poor I am defending the person who did this.

                I am not advocating anyone do anything illegal. illegal-to-say

                • 7bicycles [he/him]
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You can just say yes, you don't have to couch this shit in a good WKUK skit.

                  Do they do harm to the poor that are on bicycles, or walking, then?

                  • Awoo [she/her]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    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. It seems like spite to me.

                    • 7bicycles [he/him]
                      ·
                      10 months ago

                      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?

                      • Awoo [she/her]
                        ·
                        10 months ago

                        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.

                        • 7bicycles [he/him]
                          ·
                          10 months ago

                          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.

                          • Awoo [she/her]
                            ·
                            10 months ago

                            Meanwhile, in the real world we must be concerned with actually viable change.

                            when the last speed cam is dismantled you'll find all the roads still suck ass and will not be redesigned

                            This is just factually not true, evidenced by the abundance of traffic calming measures that exists, and those that have replaced cameras.

                            You are inventing a fantasy reality to suit an anti car obsession. One I share, car reduction is good. However you're being a tit now.

                            • 7bicycles [he/him]
                              ·
                              10 months ago

                              Meanwhile, in the real world we must be concerned with actually viable change.

                              Real Zach Brannigan hours here on account of "It might get a lot of other people killed but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

                              You are inventing a fantasy reality to suit an anti car obsession. One I share, car reduction is good. However you're being a tit now.

                              What part of this is fantasy. Like where do you see the political potential for a nigh nationwide road redesign.

                              • Awoo [she/her]
                                ·
                                10 months ago

                                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.

                                Show

                                Parts of the road already have traffic calming measures.

                                Show

                                This is very easily expanded upon with the addition of chicanes, which are in wide use (hundreds of thousands) across the country.

                                Show

                                Show

                                Show
                                #

                                Show

                                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.

                                • 7bicycles [he/him]
                                  ·
                                  10 months ago

                                  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.

                                  I'm german tho.

                                  By American standards it would be considered idyllic.

                                  As such, I do not believe american standards as per roads are anything to go by

                                  Parts of the road already have traffic calming measures.

                                  That's not really gonna stop anybody from speeding down the remaining lane(s) because they're still very wide. It's good for pedestrians, probably, don't get me wrong, doesn't really fight the speeding problem at all.

                                  This is very easily expanded upon with the addition of chicanes, which are in wide use (hundreds of thousands) across the country.

                                  These do

                                  There's no "reimagining" needed here. People don't need to develop a new consciousness of public space.

                                  Those are very much spotwork as per slowing down cars. They work for that spot, yes. It is however absolutely not hard to accelerate a car again. This is a good idea to slow people down before a busy or a school crossing or something, the third picture especially is just going to lead to slow down / wait -> mash gas pedal

                                  We do not live in a country that is utterly obsessed with cars like america.

                                  True, but also nigh about the lowest bar to clear right after like Saudi Arabia.

                                  There are zero political barriers to this, the only barrier is the profit/revenue barrier of the traffic camera obsessed crowd.

                                  And you accuse me of living in some fantasy reality?

                                  In every town, in every village, in every city. Outisde every school. In every residential area. All over the country.

                                  Same, could find similar features here by looking out my old apartments window. Hell, do you one better than that, we have shit like this

                                  Show

                                  Sorry for the grainy pictures, didn't wanna spend that much time on google. Now that's a road you can't speed on, on account of many chicanes and other built up enviroments, not just the single one and then it's open road before and after.

                                  Doesn't mean the rest of it isn't incredibly car brained and hostile, and as such, transportation by foot or cycling sucks major ass.

                                  If your vision of not being carbrained is "do better than the USA", yeah, you're there, but that shouldn't be the end goal

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        11 months ago

        Eh? This is nowhere near Newport and it's not a motorway either.

        • Satanic_Mills [comrade/them]
          ·
          11 months ago

          There are speed cameras all over the country, including on non-residential roads where traffic calming measures are not appropiate interventions.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      ·
      11 months ago

      Unlimited funding for speed camera's and kickbacks, zero funding for road redesign? That sounds really safe!

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A speed camera that was only recently replaced was among two cut down overnight in Cornwall.In the latest attack on the county's speed traps, police said the speed camera at Perranarworthal had been cut down for a second time after it was first vandalised in October 2023 and replaced in November.Another camera was also attacked on Tregolls Road in Truro at about 03:10 GMT, officers said.Devon and Cornwall Police said those responsible had left the scene before officers arrived.

    The cameras in Perranarworthal were installed in March 2023 after campaigning from residents.Cornwall Councillor Peter Williams, who represents Perranarworthal, said: "It is absolutely horrendous why people go and do these things under the noses of where people live.

    The speed camera on Tregolls Road in Truro had more than 17,000 activations the year after it was installed, according to police.Loic Rich, Truro City Councillor for the Tregolls Ward, said parents had complained about the dangers of speeding in the area.He said: "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.

    "Whoever's cut down the speed camera, and I don't know why they've done that or what they're trying to achieve, I think it's a real shame.

    Cornwall Council and Devon and Cornwall Police, both members of the Vision Zero Road Safety partnership, said in a joint statement that they were disappointed to see "yet more mindless vandalism targeted at safety cameras".They said: "These devices were installed at the wishes of the community to improve road safety in areas, which had previously experienced high speeds and several serious and fatal collisions.“While these cameras are inactive, these communities no longer have the protection they were once afforded, which is really saddening.“The cost of replacing these cameras is also a burden which has to be footed by the taxpayer, making these attacks all the more bizarre."


    The original article contains 434 words, the summary contains 350 words. Saved 19%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!