Automatic enforcement, with the right to override it recorded in the black box to be used as evidence in crash cases, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But inevitably there will be bugs, just as there are in self-driving cars (especially the often dangerous “semi-autonomous” vehicles).
However there is a cheaper solution: Fixed, widespread speed cameras. Which right now are effectively banned in the UK, because the treasury confiscates the fines (local government pays the running costs, and therefore can’t afford to run any).
While I understand there are usability issues, and design can help with that, if you’re not able to drive your ton of metal safely and legally you shouldn’t be driving it. If people expected to get caught, they’d drive slower.
The bottom line is speed limits are the law. And lower speed limits reduce the number of serious injuries dramatically and help to push people onto public transport. Although with old cars they increase emissions slightly; with modern hybrids they reduce them.
When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.
The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.
But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.
@immibis@sooper_dooper_roofer@mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.
They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.
As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.
More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.
My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?
@PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.
They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.
But they have to pay for the costs of running them.
And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.
Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.
Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those?
Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?
@PowerCrazy You’re saying we shouldn’t have buses, bicycles and ambulances either?
I believe we can reduce the number of cars by maybe 70 to 80% over the next few decades.
But there’s a lot to do to get to that point. We can’t flip a switch overnight to eliminate *all* cars without dealing with accessibility, housing, prejudice, new rail lines, a whole bunch of problems, some of which will take some time to fix.
On the other hand we *can* make significant progress by investing in public transport, especially buses, combined with some mildly coercive measures such as LTNs, reduced parking, lower speed limits, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.
@gabriel@sooper_dooper_roofer@mondoman712 Some of this results from the practical reality that many of our cities are specifically designed to force people to drive. Unfortunately it will take time to fix that.
However, as I just boosted, there are plenty of people who can’t drive.
@sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Modern petrol cars contain lots of computers too.
Automatic enforcement, with the right to override it recorded in the black box to be used as evidence in crash cases, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But inevitably there will be bugs, just as there are in self-driving cars (especially the often dangerous “semi-autonomous” vehicles).
However there is a cheaper solution: Fixed, widespread speed cameras. Which right now are effectively banned in the UK, because the treasury confiscates the fines (local government pays the running costs, and therefore can’t afford to run any).
While I understand there are usability issues, and design can help with that, if you’re not able to drive your ton of metal safely and legally you shouldn’t be driving it. If people expected to get caught, they’d drive slower.
The bottom line is speed limits are the law. And lower speed limits reduce the number of serious injuries dramatically and help to push people onto public transport. Although with old cars they increase emissions slightly; with modern hybrids they reduce them.
@matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 wait are you seriously saying that speed cameras are banned because the money from the speeding fines goes to the government?
You want private companies to make profits from pointing cameras out their windows and submitting speeding tickets? Good lord!
@immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 In the UK, local councils pay for fixed speed cameras.
Central government confiscates the fines.
When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.
The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.
But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.
@matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 I think the same thing still applies. Do you really want speed cameras to make profits? You don’t want to go down that road.
@immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.
They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.
As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.
More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.
My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?
@PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.
They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.
But they have to pay for the costs of running them.
And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.
Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.
Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those? Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?
@PowerCrazy You’re saying we shouldn’t have buses, bicycles and ambulances either?
I believe we can reduce the number of cars by maybe 70 to 80% over the next few decades.
But there’s a lot to do to get to that point. We can’t flip a switch overnight to eliminate *all* cars without dealing with accessibility, housing, prejudice, new rail lines, a whole bunch of problems, some of which will take some time to fix.
On the other hand we *can* make significant progress by investing in public transport, especially buses, combined with some mildly coercive measures such as LTNs, reduced parking, lower speed limits, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.
@matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 You know, they tried paying people to arrest people in the past, and it ended up with lots of false arrests and no accountability for them.
A cheaper alternative would be no cars at all you know?
@PowerCrazy We need to substantially reduce the number of cars.
Increasing the number of speed cameras, while reducing speed limits, is a step in that direction.
deleted by creator
@gabriel @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 You can’t do statistics on speed cameras if there are almost no speed cameras.
Which is the reality today. Sometimes the police go out with mobile units. But there are very few fixed ones.
deleted by creator
@gabriel @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Because somehow drivers have decided that driving is a right in the same sense that freedom of association is a right.
That any restriction on their ability to drive, that any monitoring of their driving in a public place, is somehow against civil liberties.
That the law should be reinterpreted to suit them. That “causing death by dangerous driving” is somehow less serious than manslaughter (aka murder 3).
Freedom to drive has never been a constitutional or human right. Certainly not in my country nor in the USA.
Cars need to be regulated for the same reason that guns need to be regulated.
@gabriel @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Some of this results from the practical reality that many of our cities are specifically designed to force people to drive. Unfortunately it will take time to fix that.
However, as I just boosted, there are plenty of people who can’t drive.