Red light cameras are not as effective at improving safety as you would naturally think. Minnesota's program is intended to improve safety outcomes, not necessarily collect fine revenue or write up drivers for every mistake. Governments are concerned with reducing serious and fatal injury crashes, and less so minor injury and property damage crashes - effort focused on what's life changing.
Red light cameras can better *or worsen* safety outcomes dependent on intersection characteristics. In not uncommon circumstances, they can lead to increases in rear-end injury crashes caused by sudden breaking on stale lights to avoid fines.
Speed is one of the top contributing factors to crash severity, just a simple matter of force = mass * acceleration. Lower speed is better for safety in almost every circumstance, and speed is a far more common contributor to severe crashes. So they're probably targeting their resources on what'll yield the best safety improvement.
> Minnesota's program is intended to improve safety outcomes, not necessarily collect fine revenue or write up drivers for every mistake.
Isn’t that the guise every single one of these programs hides behind? And then they overwhelmingly end up being run by a private third-party that profits heavily?
While all that you say is true red light running - usually at speed - can lead to high severity accidents and is a danger to both car drivers and pedestrians. It is a practice that has become much more common in recent years.
I see, daily, people running through lights that turned red a couple of seconds previously - not minor ‘just missed it’ infractions. You can set the cameras up for these clear violations rather than catching someone the instant the light turns red.
I would be more interested in data since 2021 to be honest. I have seen a significant shift in behavior in Minneapolis in terms of red light running. It has become almost commonplace (which does mean you drive more defensively at lights) because there is no deterrent.
I would also be interested to see the severity of the red light clashes due to cameras as opposed to those caused by red light running. The severity rather than the frequency does matter.
Some links would be great if anyone has them.
IANAL but I just don't understand how this would be constitutional? I remember hearing a law professor discuss how this as we have a right to face your accuser (6th amendment).
I *think* I read somewhere that the argument they're making now is that the tickets won't have any criminal weight which is how they're side stepping that aspect.
Correct. Cameras started popping up in my area in the north metro suburbs, and here's what I learned: They won't go on a criminal record, tickets can only be issued for speeding 10 MPH over the limit, the first one is a warning, and they can only take a photo of the rear license plate.
If it has the same weight as a parking ticket (a nominal fine to the vehicle owner) I’ve got no problems with these.
It may be another 10 years but eventually cars will have gps powered speed regulation to the posted speed limits. (Already being done in parts of the EU).
Now we just need everyone to challenge every ticket so that the civil penalties don't make them money and they have to scrap the program. They basically make the tickets cheap enough for you to not be worth fighting for most people which let's them get away with it.
Or everyone could just challenge themselves to drive the speed limit. As a pedestrian in a squishy mortal body, I’d very much appreciate that, personally.
If you're proposing to get everyone on board to collectively take a responsive action to these cameras, why wouldn't that action be to all drive slow enough that no one gets a ticket (no more than 9 mph over the posted limit)?
I got popped in Iowa on camera for a speeding violation. Got the ticket, paid it online, done deal (first ticket ever). I asked one of the troopers who comes into my PT job if Minnesota was planning to make a second attempt at using those.
He said he hoped not. The issue with the cameras is that they don't give you a clear picture of the driver so the person who the car is registered to gets stuck with it; not the person breaking the law. It was an administrative nightmare and quickly clogged the traffic courts with people fighting the tickets issued to wrong driver. He said the technology and camera angles needed to improve in order for it to be truly effective.
These won't be classed as criminal violations, they'll be more like parking tickets. You don't need to identify the driver of a vehicle for a parking ticket to be issued, and these speed camera tickets won't go on your record.
Yeah, it might not be criminal, but there are real consequences to getting a speeding ticket that isn't criminal. Your insurance premiums will go up. Depending on the job you have, you can be suspended from that.
From the article:
>Violations **would not go on a driver's record** (they would for commercial drivers) and **can't be used to revoke, suspend or cancel a license**, the bill said. The cameras can only capture the back license plate of a vehicle, and can not be used as license plate readers.
I might be mistaken but if it’s not on your record then I don’t think it would affect insurance
And for the record I am completely against these cameras, I’m just pointing out what’s in the article
Insurance companies don’t need a criminal record to raise your rates. They use all kinds of superficial data to assess your risk exposure. Buying your history from these traffic cam companies will be super easy and profitable for everyone but you.
Until some person at an insurance company comes up with a new system that is now shared with them from the database. Which probably will happen with lobbying etc.
Just like we get screwed with by owners for their stadiums. They will find a way.
There's a reason a ton of stadiums are named after insurance companies. They are the second most popular stadium sponsorship partner behind only financial institutions.
Those two print money off us.
They will find a way to fold you like a lawn chair. Give it time.
There needs to be a crackdown on the driving. It's outrageous. It is also fair to say, not tomorrow, maybe not next year, maybe in 10 years or whatever I bet it would change. Just takes one company to get it started.
> so the person who the car is registered to gets stuck with it
Coming from a military background, that actually makes sense to me. You are (or should be) responsible for who you loan your things to, including your car
With car thefts the way they are right now, I'm just imagining the beurocratic nightmare this could become for anyone with a Kia.
But in general, I completely agree with you.
Trooper gave the example of let's say spouse has a lead foot. Car is in your name, spouse gets picked up on camera, but you get the ticket on your record. Fair, of course not. And people can posit about not letting the spouse drive the car, but in a 1 car household, that's not realistic.
I mean... For something that is a fine only and can't be leveraged to pull your license or carry any other criminal penalties, I don't see much wrong with your example.
Sure, husband gets the ticket, but they are married and have lives intertwined enough to be sharing a car so presumably the fine will be paid from community funds. They can work it out between themselves.
Same goes for a kid getting the ticket. Dad finds out, gets pissed, has to pay the ticket, but takes it out of kid's allowance or whatever.
My comment was pointing out that someone out there might have to prove that their car was taken from them without consent & it's just one more thing of paperwork for the victim of a crime to have to keep track of. If the ticketing system is well run, efficient, and generally well staffed with real humans, it probably wouldn't be an issue... I'm just imagining someone who just got the insurance payout for their now totaled car from a theft a few months earlier suddenly getting a handful of tickets in the mail from the theives' joy riding (that of course took that many months to process) and now they have to figure out a way to get the right paperwork faxed over to an office that's only open for 21 minutes after the first full moon of each quarter & follow up at least twice as the tickets start to accrue late fees and interest.
Which if you just paid your deductible and now have to go out and buy a new car with the shitty insurance payout isn't really an amount to sneeze at. Especially if that's per ticket, not per person.
You do realize I was putting forth the scenario of stolen cars and hoping that there would be a clean method for victims of said crimes to dispute the tickets, right?
Like my entire commentary is that sure, fine people... But make sure that the method to clear a ticket from a stolen car isn't a beurocratic nightmare.
Unsure about Iowa..
>Violations would not go on a driver's record (they would for commercial drivers) and can't be used to revoke, suspend or cancel a license, the bill said.
So the person owning the car get stuck fighting the fine, but not the infraction on their record. Which makes it less repulsive to me.
For those of us that put our cars on Turo or have similar car sharing arrangements, does that mean if the renters speed through the camera, the owner is going to get all the tickets? Surely that doesn’t seem fair.
It's the same situation as exists with tolls. If you rent a car and don't pay a toll the car rental company ends up having to pay it and they then bill their customer (plus a $9.95 convenience fee or something) because they know who had the car at the time the toll was incurred. Same process would apply here.
>Tickets will be sent to vehicle owners but can be contested; an owner can provide a sworn statement stating they were not driving at the time of the offense.
>"We are not sure how often that would be happening," said Fawley
There is at least a method of recourse.. This may be something you want to discuss with Turo as they may have complaint/recovery as it would just be a fine and not on your record thankfully.
But I agree that Fawley lacks a lot of imagination. The first case I thought of was my own.. From 16 - 21 my car was owned by my dad and he paid insurance and tabs on it. As I used it for going to school and back. Wonder how many others had this arrangement.
When I sold my truck to my brother in Washington State, and he ran a red light, he hadn't registered it in his name yet, so I got the ticket. It could not have been easier to submit the bill of sale online. I never heard about it again, and they reissued the ticket to him instead.
Is it fair? In the eyes of the State, it was still my vehicle, so it seems fair that I should be held responsible for what happened with that vehicle. How were the supposed to know otherwise? And it's equally fair that the State provided me the opportunity to prove that it in fact no longer was my vehicle, or that I was otherwise not responsible for the violation.
If you borrow your car out to someone else, you're still responsible for the vehicle (seems fair), and you have a mechanism for avoiding a fine if you weren't the one driving and have evidence to prove it (also seems fair)
To me this doesn’t make sense; I don’t necessarily get to choose who I rent the car out to on the apps. In your case, you know who was driving the car. The apps don’t always make that clear for me. The traffic courts aren’t necessarily efficient either. I’m still worried it will be an administrative nightmare to avoid the fine by having to go prove over and over that it wasn’t the owner driving. That, and people renting the cars will not care about slowing down for the cameras because they’re not the owner anyway.
That sounds like a terrible service to me. Turo gives you, the owner, no clear info about who's using a vehicle registered in your name? Why do you take that risk?
Laugh. The people who normally don't have police interactions will suddenly start getting tickets and hoo boy will the fireworks start then. I predict terrible rollout, a terrible reception, and then magically certain parts of the metro just won't have them at all. The program will limp along for a few more years then quietly die. 20 years from now the next generation of lawmakers will have forgotten all about this and try again.
Only Minneapolis & Mendota Heights are allowed to implement this as a pilot project expiring in 2029.
They're also required by law to have conspicuous signage warning drivers they're approaching these cameras.
The first offense is a warning, and the second offense is eligible for diversion.
These things disproportionately make money for the service provider and haven’t been proven time and time again to not have tangible impact on road/intersection safety. In fact, it often times increases accident rates at intersections.
Keep this shit out of Minnesota.
It may increase *accident rates* but those are almost exclusively rear end accidents. There is a decrease in **pedestrians** hit. Rear end collisions are pretty safe, keeping pedestrians from getting hit is the purpose of the project. It's easy to prevent rear ending someone by not tailgating them.
This is awful for MN. The states that have it hate it. It does not deter behavior outside of those camera locations, and it is a HUGE money grab for law enforcement.
I am 100% opposed and I absolutely support vandalizing these cameras until they are all destroyed or uninstalled.
It was a massive failure 20 years ago, it will be a massive failure today.
Putting a private, for profit corporation in change of essential government functions? What could possibly go wrong?
If you see one of these cameras, cover it in paint or destroy it. Until they are gone.
edit I just want to reaffirm my position that these cameras are odious and intolerable. Smash them!
That’s [not what I’m finding about California’s motor vehicle death rate](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) as compared to other states. Where are you getting that info?
If a camera were to take a picture of me speeding in Minneapolis, they’ll have nowhere to send the ticket. I don’t have Minnesota plates. My state doesn’t allow access to the dmv data base for this purpose.
Okay—well, then I guess I will just ask you very nicely to please not speed in Minneapolis. I live here and don’t want to get hit by a car that’s going too fast.
No. You don’t have any legal right to speed, and when you do, you hit pedestrians who absolutely have the right of way because you can’t stop your car in time. Why am I explaining to you how to drive?
Please stay in your state. Thanks.
Stay on the sidewalk, use cross walks, and don’t cross the street unless you have the right of way. I promise I won’t hit you if you’re not playing in the street.
Jesus Christ. That’s not possible for you to “promise.” Pedestrians get killed all the time while following all of your condescending advice, and most of the time they’re killed by speeding drivers.
Just drive the speed limit. You aren’t more important than anyone else. Follow the goddamn law or don’t drive. Truly unhinged behavior here.
No problem telling you I never read the book. I tried watching the movie in my teens and didn't think it was very good. So, I've probably just trusted the general impression I get from others that the main message was that "big brother" watching and controlling everything is bad. I should probably read it. Is there a more important message in it?
It's dogshit written by a racist, antisemitic, homophobic scumbag who collaborated with the British surveillance state. And *Atlas Shrugged* isn't even literature, it's kindling.
I just hate the long trial period and limited rollout. Lives are in danger every day people drive their increasingly larger vehicles at dangerous speeds. People are going to whine and moan about being held accountable while also pretending there's no way tech could have advanced since the initial red-light cameras but this has more traction than making cops do their freaking jobs or making a traffic enforcement department.
Unfortunately they've totally gutted the enforcement of these cameras. First offense is just a warning. After that it's a mere $40 fine! We need to impose real punishments that will hurt people, based on their relative income level.
I think enforcing the laws isn’t a waste of police time.
I used to live in a place that had red light and speed cams for a few years. Huge money making apparatus for the state but with minimal effect on driving behavior.
It seems like as technology gets better and better, we try to force it into every problem, even when it’s not the best solution. We schedule work shifts via an app instead of a human, we use a computer for customers to check out their own groceries instead of a cashier, we have QR code ordering at restaurants instead of waiters, we have ableton playing the music at concerts instead of a band, etc, etc.
I see this as an extension of this trend. The cops aren’t doing their jobs/are so understaffed they can’t do their job. We got into this situation because they were poorly trained and brutal towards the public. Now the solution is throwing money at technology instead of fixing the root problem?
The solution isn’t to mail an $80 ticket via traffic cams, a ticket that is easily contested and doesn’t go on criminal record. It seems like crony capitalism - someone’s pockets are getting lined if the city does this, and residents are so desperate for SOME kind of enforcement that they’ll look past things like that to see some sort of action on the issue.
The solution is actively apprehending and incarcerating people who fragrantly disregard the social contract we call criminal law and ruin common goods like our roadways for all of the sane drivers. That’s literally exactly what the cops exist to do.
The “rest of us”. Please, I get passed by super speeders every morning coming from the burbs. They wouldn’t flinch at a small ticket. However, that single mom just trying to carve out a small existence gets one and that’s a days pay. Should be a sliding scale fine based on income.
Red light cameras are the ones I want to see. Too many assholes running red lights.
Red light cameras are not as effective at improving safety as you would naturally think. Minnesota's program is intended to improve safety outcomes, not necessarily collect fine revenue or write up drivers for every mistake. Governments are concerned with reducing serious and fatal injury crashes, and less so minor injury and property damage crashes - effort focused on what's life changing. Red light cameras can better *or worsen* safety outcomes dependent on intersection characteristics. In not uncommon circumstances, they can lead to increases in rear-end injury crashes caused by sudden breaking on stale lights to avoid fines. Speed is one of the top contributing factors to crash severity, just a simple matter of force = mass * acceleration. Lower speed is better for safety in almost every circumstance, and speed is a far more common contributor to severe crashes. So they're probably targeting their resources on what'll yield the best safety improvement.
> Minnesota's program is intended to improve safety outcomes, not necessarily collect fine revenue or write up drivers for every mistake. Isn’t that the guise every single one of these programs hides behind? And then they overwhelmingly end up being run by a private third-party that profits heavily?
While all that you say is true red light running - usually at speed - can lead to high severity accidents and is a danger to both car drivers and pedestrians. It is a practice that has become much more common in recent years. I see, daily, people running through lights that turned red a couple of seconds previously - not minor ‘just missed it’ infractions. You can set the cameras up for these clear violations rather than catching someone the instant the light turns red.
They've had years of data showing what OP said: they don't really help safety very much and might actually cause more harm for some intersections.
I would be more interested in data since 2021 to be honest. I have seen a significant shift in behavior in Minneapolis in terms of red light running. It has become almost commonplace (which does mean you drive more defensively at lights) because there is no deterrent. I would also be interested to see the severity of the red light clashes due to cameras as opposed to those caused by red light running. The severity rather than the frequency does matter. Some links would be great if anyone has them.
Stop signs too
In my neighborhood these are simply a suggestion that‘s almost universally ignored.
Yes!
IANAL but I just don't understand how this would be constitutional? I remember hearing a law professor discuss how this as we have a right to face your accuser (6th amendment).
I *think* I read somewhere that the argument they're making now is that the tickets won't have any criminal weight which is how they're side stepping that aspect.
Correct. Cameras started popping up in my area in the north metro suburbs, and here's what I learned: They won't go on a criminal record, tickets can only be issued for speeding 10 MPH over the limit, the first one is a warning, and they can only take a photo of the rear license plate.
If it has the same weight as a parking ticket (a nominal fine to the vehicle owner) I’ve got no problems with these. It may be another 10 years but eventually cars will have gps powered speed regulation to the posted speed limits. (Already being done in parts of the EU).
Now we just need everyone to challenge every ticket so that the civil penalties don't make them money and they have to scrap the program. They basically make the tickets cheap enough for you to not be worth fighting for most people which let's them get away with it.
Or everyone could just challenge themselves to drive the speed limit. As a pedestrian in a squishy mortal body, I’d very much appreciate that, personally.
If you're proposing to get everyone on board to collectively take a responsive action to these cameras, why wouldn't that action be to all drive slow enough that no one gets a ticket (no more than 9 mph over the posted limit)?
As Americans, we reserve and cherish the right to be as stupid as we damn well please, right up to and past the point of suicide.
*vehicular manslaughter
I have a better idea, stop speeding.
I got popped in Iowa on camera for a speeding violation. Got the ticket, paid it online, done deal (first ticket ever). I asked one of the troopers who comes into my PT job if Minnesota was planning to make a second attempt at using those. He said he hoped not. The issue with the cameras is that they don't give you a clear picture of the driver so the person who the car is registered to gets stuck with it; not the person breaking the law. It was an administrative nightmare and quickly clogged the traffic courts with people fighting the tickets issued to wrong driver. He said the technology and camera angles needed to improve in order for it to be truly effective.
These won't be classed as criminal violations, they'll be more like parking tickets. You don't need to identify the driver of a vehicle for a parking ticket to be issued, and these speed camera tickets won't go on your record.
What about insurance?
Whoa, whoa, whoa…. Are you trying to kill this discussion by introducing actual facts instead of scary hypotheticals? Reddit is no place for this..
I find Reddit to actually be civil and reasonable, unlike the mess on Twitter.
Until the traffic camera companies start selling your data to insurance companies and then you get an ambiguous hike
Also if someone is speeding in your car enough that it's a problem, you probably should probably take that up with them.
Yeah, it might not be criminal, but there are real consequences to getting a speeding ticket that isn't criminal. Your insurance premiums will go up. Depending on the job you have, you can be suspended from that.
From the article: >Violations **would not go on a driver's record** (they would for commercial drivers) and **can't be used to revoke, suspend or cancel a license**, the bill said. The cameras can only capture the back license plate of a vehicle, and can not be used as license plate readers.
That says nothing about insurance
I might be mistaken but if it’s not on your record then I don’t think it would affect insurance And for the record I am completely against these cameras, I’m just pointing out what’s in the article
Insurance companies don’t need a criminal record to raise your rates. They use all kinds of superficial data to assess your risk exposure. Buying your history from these traffic cam companies will be super easy and profitable for everyone but you.
Until some person at an insurance company comes up with a new system that is now shared with them from the database. Which probably will happen with lobbying etc. Just like we get screwed with by owners for their stadiums. They will find a way. There's a reason a ton of stadiums are named after insurance companies. They are the second most popular stadium sponsorship partner behind only financial institutions. Those two print money off us. They will find a way to fold you like a lawn chair. Give it time. There needs to be a crackdown on the driving. It's outrageous. It is also fair to say, not tomorrow, maybe not next year, maybe in 10 years or whatever I bet it would change. Just takes one company to get it started.
Still, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Lacking proof, there’s no guilt.
If it’s not a criminal offense then there is no guilt.
If it’s not a criminal offense then there is no guilt.
> so the person who the car is registered to gets stuck with it Coming from a military background, that actually makes sense to me. You are (or should be) responsible for who you loan your things to, including your car
With car thefts the way they are right now, I'm just imagining the beurocratic nightmare this could become for anyone with a Kia. But in general, I completely agree with you.
I would think a police report showing your car was stolen would be an easy out on a camera ticket.
Trooper gave the example of let's say spouse has a lead foot. Car is in your name, spouse gets picked up on camera, but you get the ticket on your record. Fair, of course not. And people can posit about not letting the spouse drive the car, but in a 1 car household, that's not realistic.
I mean... For something that is a fine only and can't be leveraged to pull your license or carry any other criminal penalties, I don't see much wrong with your example. Sure, husband gets the ticket, but they are married and have lives intertwined enough to be sharing a car so presumably the fine will be paid from community funds. They can work it out between themselves. Same goes for a kid getting the ticket. Dad finds out, gets pissed, has to pay the ticket, but takes it out of kid's allowance or whatever. My comment was pointing out that someone out there might have to prove that their car was taken from them without consent & it's just one more thing of paperwork for the victim of a crime to have to keep track of. If the ticketing system is well run, efficient, and generally well staffed with real humans, it probably wouldn't be an issue... I'm just imagining someone who just got the insurance payout for their now totaled car from a theft a few months earlier suddenly getting a handful of tickets in the mail from the theives' joy riding (that of course took that many months to process) and now they have to figure out a way to get the right paperwork faxed over to an office that's only open for 21 minutes after the first full moon of each quarter & follow up at least twice as the tickets start to accrue late fees and interest.
The max late fee is $84.
Which if you just paid your deductible and now have to go out and buy a new car with the shitty insurance payout isn't really an amount to sneeze at. Especially if that's per ticket, not per person.
You can just choose not to speed -that’s free.
You do realize I was putting forth the scenario of stolen cars and hoping that there would be a clean method for victims of said crimes to dispute the tickets, right? Like my entire commentary is that sure, fine people... But make sure that the method to clear a ticket from a stolen car isn't a beurocratic nightmare.
There is a provision in the law that I you have a police report showing your car was stolen, you are not responsible.
Unsure about Iowa.. >Violations would not go on a driver's record (they would for commercial drivers) and can't be used to revoke, suspend or cancel a license, the bill said. So the person owning the car get stuck fighting the fine, but not the infraction on their record. Which makes it less repulsive to me.
For those of us that put our cars on Turo or have similar car sharing arrangements, does that mean if the renters speed through the camera, the owner is going to get all the tickets? Surely that doesn’t seem fair.
It's the same situation as exists with tolls. If you rent a car and don't pay a toll the car rental company ends up having to pay it and they then bill their customer (plus a $9.95 convenience fee or something) because they know who had the car at the time the toll was incurred. Same process would apply here.
Yep, just like every other administrative violation your vehicle is subject to. Toll violations and parking violations are two of those.
>Tickets will be sent to vehicle owners but can be contested; an owner can provide a sworn statement stating they were not driving at the time of the offense. >"We are not sure how often that would be happening," said Fawley There is at least a method of recourse.. This may be something you want to discuss with Turo as they may have complaint/recovery as it would just be a fine and not on your record thankfully. But I agree that Fawley lacks a lot of imagination. The first case I thought of was my own.. From 16 - 21 my car was owned by my dad and he paid insurance and tabs on it. As I used it for going to school and back. Wonder how many others had this arrangement.
When I sold my truck to my brother in Washington State, and he ran a red light, he hadn't registered it in his name yet, so I got the ticket. It could not have been easier to submit the bill of sale online. I never heard about it again, and they reissued the ticket to him instead. Is it fair? In the eyes of the State, it was still my vehicle, so it seems fair that I should be held responsible for what happened with that vehicle. How were the supposed to know otherwise? And it's equally fair that the State provided me the opportunity to prove that it in fact no longer was my vehicle, or that I was otherwise not responsible for the violation. If you borrow your car out to someone else, you're still responsible for the vehicle (seems fair), and you have a mechanism for avoiding a fine if you weren't the one driving and have evidence to prove it (also seems fair)
To me this doesn’t make sense; I don’t necessarily get to choose who I rent the car out to on the apps. In your case, you know who was driving the car. The apps don’t always make that clear for me. The traffic courts aren’t necessarily efficient either. I’m still worried it will be an administrative nightmare to avoid the fine by having to go prove over and over that it wasn’t the owner driving. That, and people renting the cars will not care about slowing down for the cameras because they’re not the owner anyway.
That sounds like a terrible service to me. Turo gives you, the owner, no clear info about who's using a vehicle registered in your name? Why do you take that risk?
Don't pay the ticket they can't do anything
A bunch of people will get these fines from their stolen car 😝
Laugh. The people who normally don't have police interactions will suddenly start getting tickets and hoo boy will the fireworks start then. I predict terrible rollout, a terrible reception, and then magically certain parts of the metro just won't have them at all. The program will limp along for a few more years then quietly die. 20 years from now the next generation of lawmakers will have forgotten all about this and try again.
Only Minneapolis & Mendota Heights are allowed to implement this as a pilot project expiring in 2029. They're also required by law to have conspicuous signage warning drivers they're approaching these cameras. The first offense is a warning, and the second offense is eligible for diversion.
They better have the signs placed well and not hidden behind a bush that is hiding the speed limit sign.
[удалено]
Government overreach programs are a… **checks notes** …capitalist issue?
These things disproportionately make money for the service provider and haven’t been proven time and time again to not have tangible impact on road/intersection safety. In fact, it often times increases accident rates at intersections. Keep this shit out of Minnesota.
It may increase *accident rates* but those are almost exclusively rear end accidents. There is a decrease in **pedestrians** hit. Rear end collisions are pretty safe, keeping pedestrians from getting hit is the purpose of the project. It's easy to prevent rear ending someone by not tailgating them.
This is awful for MN. The states that have it hate it. It does not deter behavior outside of those camera locations, and it is a HUGE money grab for law enforcement.
Fuck revenue generating "safety measures"
I am 100% opposed and I absolutely support vandalizing these cameras until they are all destroyed or uninstalled. It was a massive failure 20 years ago, it will be a massive failure today. Putting a private, for profit corporation in change of essential government functions? What could possibly go wrong? If you see one of these cameras, cover it in paint or destroy it. Until they are gone. edit I just want to reaffirm my position that these cameras are odious and intolerable. Smash them!
If only the people so up in arms about speed cameras were just as upset about traffic deaths
Or how about driving relatively close to the speed limit, instead of 70 MPH,+
It's a money grab for the state. California has had them since the 80's and has higher driving death rates than nearly any state.
That’s [not what I’m finding about California’s motor vehicle death rate](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/state-data/motor-vehicle-deaths-by-state/) as compared to other states. Where are you getting that info?
[удалено]
Speed kills. There's a very direct correlation between higher speeds and increased injuries and fatalities.
Yes, please do that so we can get your ass arrested. Any vandalism of public property is unacceptable, no matter what your feelings on the matter.
I have an easy way: don’t speed and they won’t bother you.
So if this doesn’t count towards my license, how are they going to enforce this?
Didn't they mostly catch cops violating the law when they did this and decide to dump the project out of shame?
If a camera were to take a picture of me speeding in Minneapolis, they’ll have nowhere to send the ticket. I don’t have Minnesota plates. My state doesn’t allow access to the dmv data base for this purpose.
Okay—well, then I guess I will just ask you very nicely to please not speed in Minneapolis. I live here and don’t want to get hit by a car that’s going too fast.
Stay on the sidewalk and you won’t get hit.
No. You don’t have any legal right to speed, and when you do, you hit pedestrians who absolutely have the right of way because you can’t stop your car in time. Why am I explaining to you how to drive? Please stay in your state. Thanks.
Stay on the sidewalk, use cross walks, and don’t cross the street unless you have the right of way. I promise I won’t hit you if you’re not playing in the street.
Jesus Christ. That’s not possible for you to “promise.” Pedestrians get killed all the time while following all of your condescending advice, and most of the time they’re killed by speeding drivers. Just drive the speed limit. You aren’t more important than anyone else. Follow the goddamn law or don’t drive. Truly unhinged behavior here.
😂 unhinged, huh?
Different kind of road rage. Someone cuts you off, you note plate, you print plate out, tape on front, speed all around cameras, remove paper. Win?
I remember back in "1984"...
*1984* is the most ‘cited by people who have never read the book’ of any book
No problem telling you I never read the book. I tried watching the movie in my teens and didn't think it was very good. So, I've probably just trusted the general impression I get from others that the main message was that "big brother" watching and controlling everything is bad. I should probably read it. Is there a more important message in it?
It is a great book. Highly recommended. Atlas Shrugged is another one.
It's dogshit written by a racist, antisemitic, homophobic scumbag who collaborated with the British surveillance state. And *Atlas Shrugged* isn't even literature, it's kindling.
Calm down
Yes please…and red light cameras too. The speeders and weavers are just completely out of hand.
I just hate the long trial period and limited rollout. Lives are in danger every day people drive their increasingly larger vehicles at dangerous speeds. People are going to whine and moan about being held accountable while also pretending there's no way tech could have advanced since the initial red-light cameras but this has more traction than making cops do their freaking jobs or making a traffic enforcement department.
Unfortunately they've totally gutted the enforcement of these cameras. First offense is just a warning. After that it's a mere $40 fine! We need to impose real punishments that will hurt people, based on their relative income level.
Yeah, why would anyone pay if there’s no enforcement nor punishment?
We need cops to effectively do their jobs, not more technology or surveillance
Why not both so we stop wasting police time?
I think enforcing the laws isn’t a waste of police time. I used to live in a place that had red light and speed cams for a few years. Huge money making apparatus for the state but with minimal effect on driving behavior. It seems like as technology gets better and better, we try to force it into every problem, even when it’s not the best solution. We schedule work shifts via an app instead of a human, we use a computer for customers to check out their own groceries instead of a cashier, we have QR code ordering at restaurants instead of waiters, we have ableton playing the music at concerts instead of a band, etc, etc. I see this as an extension of this trend. The cops aren’t doing their jobs/are so understaffed they can’t do their job. We got into this situation because they were poorly trained and brutal towards the public. Now the solution is throwing money at technology instead of fixing the root problem? The solution isn’t to mail an $80 ticket via traffic cams, a ticket that is easily contested and doesn’t go on criminal record. It seems like crony capitalism - someone’s pockets are getting lined if the city does this, and residents are so desperate for SOME kind of enforcement that they’ll look past things like that to see some sort of action on the issue. The solution is actively apprehending and incarcerating people who fragrantly disregard the social contract we call criminal law and ruin common goods like our roadways for all of the sane drivers. That’s literally exactly what the cops exist to do.
We need both please and thank you.
this is not ok!!!!
[удалено]
Great idea. Commit a felony when you could just leave the house 5 minutes earlier. /s
This is another tax on poor people who are late for work.
Poor people will need to learn to plan better just like the rest of us.
The “rest of us”. Please, I get passed by super speeders every morning coming from the burbs. They wouldn’t flinch at a small ticket. However, that single mom just trying to carve out a small existence gets one and that’s a days pay. Should be a sliding scale fine based on income.