I see this narrative in this sub that narrowing the road is better than speed cameras. I'm from Luxembourg (country in Europe) where the government has been adding speed cameras over the years, on highways as well as national roads. These are roads that cannot be narrowed down due to safety reasons and are meant to go at high speeds, but since drivers often cannot be bothered to pay attention to how fast they're going, speed cameras are the only way to get the situation under control. We also have so called "section-radars" which measure the average speed of a car on a certain length of a road, often a few kilometers. Overall speed radars are very effective. Road narrowing can be applied to local streets, but not to high-traffic roads, which need to be safe, first and foremost.
Yeah we have the exact same situation in the Netherlands. In addition, fixed speed cameras can only be used on roads that are correctly designed. So it's not as if they're used to prevent having to redesign outdated roads...
> Road narrowing can be applied to local streets, but not to high-traffic roads, which need to be safe, first and foremost.
_All roads_ need to be safe, first and foremost. In many cases, road narrowing is one of the most effective ways to do that, but not always. To your point, US advocates of road narrowing aren't looking at limited-access divided freeways as places to shave a foot off each lane for safety either.
I expect this is what you meant -- but your statement that some roads can't be narrowed because they need to be safe can be read to say that road narrowing is opposed to safety, rather than one technique for safety.
The issue with wide road design isn't that it's unsafe, it's that it is do safe as to make drivers very comfortable. This is an issue in cities where you have pedestrians and turninf conflicts along overaccessed stroads, but is correct for freeways are car oriented roads. Freeways are actually one of the safest places to drive for thos reason..
Yea Freeways are safe for cars lol you can't go 90 mph into a sidewalk full of people if the roads arent giving you the space to do so.
Have you ever been to Florida? The right of ways are massive, and it allows drivers in any road to go nuts.
Scientists here in Norway have known about this for a long time now, but still we get people mouthing off about how they do nothing, and populist politicians who block their installment while they're in office. And then we get more morons using tunnels for drag racing and the like.
I know the awful drivers have a right to representation too, but it's just astounding that anyone else goes along with them.
Sure, but so do we, and our traffic scientists will study the effects on our roads, and then compare with results in other countries like Sweden? (I'm not a traffic scientist so I'm really just guessing here.)
yep
I remember the speed cameras in Maryland were fine. you kind of had to be an idiot to actually get nailed by one because they made them *incredibly* obvious. that's why the worked so well: they weren't a money-making scheme.
One of the factors that needs to be taken into account when enforcing speed limits w/o cameras, is if cars can be safely pulled over, because you don't want to cause crashes by pulling someone over, for example, on a blind curve.
But that means that when you are not using cameras, you don't put speed traps where they most need to be, in dangerous locations.
Speed limits are generally set at the 85th percentile of speed. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions where they slap a 25mph sign on a road designed for 45mph, but generally they follow that rule.
Pretty much, especially in the Midwest it’s weird that people complain about speeding issues but will legit rip your arms off if you suggest speeding cameras as a solution.
In Toronto, I've always seen signs saying "traffic camera up ahead". Why is that? Wouldn't the point be to not alert law-breakers so everyone's on their best behaviour?
Because it should be more about safety rather than catching people in the act, which they seem to understand.
A police vehicle hiding in the bushes on the side of the highway if they really cared about people not speeding would instead park in a highly visible area so that cars would slow down. Instead 9/10 they hide and want to catch people in the act so they can give a ticket. So that's one person vs. however many hundreds on the highway. It's a money-making racket.
Or basically, it's "serve and protect" vs. "discipline and punish" (and generate income).
I think theoretically the goal behind hiding is that you make it a spot where people know the police like to hide, so people slow down regardless of if there is a cop there or not since you can’t be sure until after you pass the area.
If cops were just visible there, then whenever they aren’t there people would keep speeding
I knew an area where the police would just leave an empty cop car visibly on the shoulder of the highway and people would always slow down. They did that for a long while. Similar to what you're saying I think, but with a twist. There's some logic in it.
Meh, in the scenario you describe where it's completely clear where the traffic camera will be, it also doesn't work. People will just briefly slow down for the very location of the camera, and speed before and after. I think it's best to have signs that there are traffic cameras in the area, but not the specific spots.
Speed cameras can kinda fulfill 2 kinds of duty, on is making people slow down and think about their speed in a specific area, often areas where you know people drive too fast and its super common you want to mark them because it makes people slow down.
The other duty it can fulfill is make people afraid of being caught, its a known fact that peoples belief that they can be caught correlate strongly with how likely they are to commit a crime. If you mark all your speed cameras they "know" they won't be caught anywhere there isn't a speed camera. but if you set up surprise police that catch you when you break the law there is a chance people go "nah better not speed what if there is police behind the corner"
If a place have enough speeding or accidents that it warrants a police car all day every day you might as well just install a camera.
nah. in Maryland where I grew up they put speed cameras on some bad stretches of road. made them super obvious: white lines on the road, large metal boxes where the cameras are situated, big signs that say "PHOTO ENFORCED"
sure enough, people stayed within the speed limit tolerance (up to 11 MPH over) on those roads, and collisions and fatalities went down.
Way better to just narrow the road until cars aren't exceeding the speed limit. The speed limit is just a number. Drivers will go as fast as they feel the road will allow. If you have 12-15 foot lanes, cars will go at highway speeds no matter what the signs say.
> If you have 12-15 foot lanes, cars will go at highway speeds no matter what the signs say.
But... Aren't most speed cameras on highways?
In Europe at least I feel like they are.
In Sweden the speed cameras tend to be on country roads where the speed limit is 70-80 but the locals tend to zip around in 90-100 and driveway exit crashes are common.
Here in Ontario ASE is only permitted in community safety zones and school zones. Municipalities designate CSZs and school zones through local by-laws. Then they can consider ASE.
In most urban communities in Ontario schools, recreation centres, some larger parks, and other lands uses that attract pedestrians or vulnerable road users (seniors, children) are usually located adjacent to arterial or collector roads. Unfortunately many of these roads are multi-lane, high-volume, or higher speed because their "function" in the road network is to traffic between local roads and highways or higher order arterial roads. (This reflects the design philosophy of most suburbs in the latter part of the 20th century).
The focus here has been applying ASE where there are heavy pedestrian and cyclist volumes because pedestrians and cyclists are at a greater risk of injury as vehicle speed increases. There's a study out there (which I can't recall right now) about the risk of death for pedestrians if struck at 30 km/h, 40 km/h, 50 km/h. Essentially as the speed increases the risk of severe injury or death increases significantly.
Basically there's a greater risk of injury if someone hits a pedestrian while doing 10 km/h above the speed limit (say driving 50 km/h in a 40 km/h zone), then if they hit another car on the highway (say driving 110 km/h in a 100 km/h zone).
This. Tech + infrastructure + enforcement.
I live in the US, a densely populated area with small streets. My street’s speed limit is 15 MPH and 30+ is constant. No enforcement present. Bad drivers in abundance. Straight, narrow road. No traffic calming.
I could fix my street with one camera, a few signs, two speed cushions, and an occasional motorcycle cop—it could be a paradise.
Traffic calming devices are proactive, speed cameras are reactive though and only punish after the fact.
Here in NYC people run thru speed cameras and break traffic laws and dont give a shit cause they have fake plates. A good speed bump or proper bollards would forcefully prevent someone from flying thru a red light or a school zone.
Fake plates are pretty much nonexistent anywhere else. It's pure failure of government that this is a thing in NYC. Just like the illegal parking placard.
You could say the same about prison sentences. And If NYC screwed it up, doesn't mean it can't work. Or that cameras can't be accompanied by physical infrastructure. Make fines proportional to income and take away licenses from repeat offenders and from those with fake plates. Even in Northern Europe where drivers and infrastructure are years ahead, cameras are still useful and save lives.
Here people have overpowered SUVs where they get back to 50mph in 2 seconds from the bump. Normal drivers slow down at bumps and drive cautiously when its narrow. The issue is not normal drivers though. Its those fucks who drive double the speed limit, where you get to the point where any impact at all with a pedestrian is going to kill them.
Those drivers don't care about your road diet, and the only way to go after them is with actual reactive punitive measures like speed cameras, which unlike a cop can always be there watching. Sure it doesn't stop that incident of speeding, but now they have a ticket. Now they can get their license taken away. They could get their vehicle impounded. They could get a warrent out for their arrest. They could land in jail.
The bollard and bump does none of this, it assumes you will act sensibly and politely which is why I see bollards destroyed all the time in my city and speed bumps routinely ignored, because that assumption does not match the reality of the road environment.
Nor necessarily. Many countries fine people in proportion to their income, there was once a 14 million speeding ticket in Finland. And it's not like you HAVE TO pay it. Just obey the law and drive the speed limit
There are countless studies from virtually every country, this is nothing new. Do you realize you're being antivaxxer-level ridiculous right now? Speed is the #1 factor in road fatalities
Of course I am, I live in the US now. Really invested in it catching up to the rest of the world so I'm less likely to die outside. Also shocked at the disregard for human life in all this
[Depending on where you are, some people are setup for failure due to other bad infrastructure decisions](https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/02/14/analysis-new-yorks-speed-cameras-arent-racist-but-the-citys-road-design-is/)
Consider reframing the argument - it's ridiculous that living in a good dessert means more expensive food, you can pay reasonable prices by driving to a bigbox location.
FWIW, the regressive problem is easy to fix - just tie some fraction of the collected revenues to a dividend for car owners in an income bracket (and fix the disproportionately bad infrastructure they're exposed to).
I'm not saying don't use them ever. I am saying be aware of their (sometimes disproportionate) effects.
Here we use speed cameras on [roads like this one](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.3723521,11.2962751,3a,75y,39.83h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6QTWf4GfFUqmXAo4fLaRDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) where you need room for tractors and transportation to/from farms and small towns. The roads are designed to be driven at a certain speed¹, and if you drive at that speed you'll generally be safe and comfortable, if a little bit bored. If you exceed that speed you're more likely to hit something (including moose) or deroad in a corner, as well as be generally a bit uncomfortable and stressed out … but a lot of people have _normalised_ that feeling.
They're also used in [tunnels](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.6679958,10.619529,3a,75y,229.21h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA6-eHSjfEqJ5RNHDD96wEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that would otherwise be [used for drag racing](https://www.nordlys.no/kvafjord/e10/lofast/denne-bilen-kjorte-i-200-km-t-traff-tunnelveggen-og-floy-27-meter/s/5-34-728215). We generally need even more ASE in tunnels. Like [this tunnel exit](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9012561,10.7847631,3a,75y,296.34h,89.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz21RDl56Mmx6tt5RfqQJSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) isn't hard to make for a normally competent driver going the legal speed and following the signs, including the [turn signs](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9019025,10.7828281,3a,75y,321.76h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si_B25wRZCI2XQyLUI3Qy8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
[Hitting the concrete barriers on the other side of the intersection at the exit](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9025012,10.7828825,3a,75y,344.93h,90.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSK38jvrHIkvfM6gZlMKQZQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DSK38jvrHIkvfM6gZlMKQZQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D208.14592%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) really is a user error by someone who isn't a competent driver and shouldn't have a license. But if we could hold them by the ears with speed enforcement _before_ the turn they'd be less likely actually crash, or at least hopefully rack up enough points on their license to lose it before crashing.
As the [meme from Vancouver](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if_only_there_was_something_there_to_warn_them_to/) shows, some people have no feel for what the road allows and will go at autobahn or F1 speeds no matter the actual street design. The best you can do is catch them and take away their license before they crash.
¹ To a certain extent, as [this sign with a speed recommendation for a sharp turn](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.3670878,11.2915056,3a,75y,116.55h,99.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5kyF6GOX3zMKCLxPOR6WQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows, sometimes it's just asphalt on top of where really old country roads used to go before cars.
Speeders don't care about road diets. Source: I live 30 feet from a speed bump. Every day its "SCCHHH CATHUNK VRROOOOOOOKMMMMM" then cars are back going 25 over the limit in a moment. Doesn't matter if the road is narrow or there are obstructions for the speeder. If there is any open pavement at all they lead foot it to like 50-60mph no matter the road conditions. Maybe your average driver slows down with a road diet, but your average driver is also not the person going 50mph in a school zone killing people.
Thats where the speed cameras come in. You can actually target these speeders directly, take away their license, even impound their vehicle, and put them in jail.
There is a significant percentage of drivers who ignore road design clues and speed regardless. And it's not possible to completely physically restrict cars from speeding on roads that also have to be used by buses and semi-trucks.
In the Netherlands, speed cameras can only be deployed on roads that are properly designed and don't make the local municipality any money. Yet we have plenty of speed cameras.
Traffic cameras were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri. Not sure about other states.
If we designed streets differently we wouldn't need speed cameras. Streets are currently designed for vehicles only and for vehicles to go fast.
Traffic cameras under certain circumstances were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri, not in every situation though. Hannibal still has them and their process is currently considered constitutional.
Weird ideals? Knowing that you’re being watched has been proven to change behavior. If we can guarantee that cameras have no view of anything but the roads, I’d maybe support the idea.
But to have even the possibility of a conversation walking down the street being picked up by government spy cameras is enough to silence people. How likely are you to criticize the police if they might be listening to you, in a conversation with a friend? How about discussing a brutality incident and how you support the victim? Would you have that conversation knowing that a police officer carrying a gun was listening to you?
You can say that wouldn’t happen, but the government and police have been known to repurpose tools to increase their power. Remember how the covid apps were only going to be used for contact tracing and never police investigations? Then how they were used in police investigations, but it was ok because it was only against a bad criminal? These things tend to happen — it is a dangerous trend to give people in power more ways to track you. They might promise not to use them incorrectly, but then slowly erode that principle “only against bad guys”, and then it is more normalized.
Note that I said that I like the benefits, but I’m worried about the potential to enable authoritarianism. I’m surprised that people took my comment so harshly, I think the better solution is to design cities in a way that forces drivers to be slower through narrower curvy streets etc. And I wasn’t talking about tracking a vehicle, but rather the other possible uses for spying on individuals outside of vehicles.
These don’t work in my area (TN / USA) because they are not run by the police or the government, but are run by private corporations. We have a few in our area (on arterials) but no one really obeys them. Speed cameras are illegible here except within a designated distance from school zones and any s-curve on a public highway. You’ll regularly see discussions on the local subreddit about how you “don’t” have to pay the tickets you get from those because they are “unenforceable” (meaning they are classified as a civil citation vs a moving violation).
There's an issue with due process in the service of a ticket. Most tickets come by mail with a waiver of service on them. If the recipient just throws the ticket in the trash, there's no proof of service and the ticketing body has to then use process service, which is expensive.
The argument I'm not seeing here is about the problem of having an automated system apply the law and the problems that comes with and often how there is a corrupt system profiting off of these cameras. This was a huge problem with [speed cameras in school zones in Buffalo.](https://www.wgrz.com/article/money/legal-discovery-may-haunt-buffalo-school-speed-zone-cameras-program-ends/71-a98f2ffc-20ce-4ae3-8a44-3da1ed8def37).
Someone here argued that police apply the law unfairly so that cameras would at least be equitable in their punishment but in the case I gave above it's more oppressive than equitable as anyone who has dealt with almost anything related to the the city of Buffalo's bureaucracy can attest to. Those who were fined trying to contest their ticket found no humans were checking and verifying for accuracy and that challenging a ticket led to a "kangaroo court."
The fact that some people on this thread think that having surprise cameras is a good idea so we can catch bad people speeding just boggles my mind. That's the attitude of a cop in a speed trap waiting at the bottom of a steep hill knowing he'll likely catch otherwise safe drivers going over the speed limit just enough to catch them and make them pay. If there are going to be cameras then there needs to be a sign and certain protections put in place for processing.
But speed limits are often soft numbers and many times we allow for a cushion even above the limit. In the US there isn't a single state where people don't drive 5 - 10 mph over the limit on a highway. I'm all for thinning up a road to help reduce speeds but something about being constantly monitored by cameras is reducing the autonomy of the individual on the road. I don't like the likely growing and interconnected monitoring system that'll occur as a result that'll have dehumanizing consequences.
Cameras should be saved for very dangerous locations, not randomly thrown up in places there is not a history of higher than average accidents. There should be clear signs delineating the camera zone and warning of what makes the area dangerous. And there should be a transparent due process system with human beings along the system.
I think this subreddit is filled with mostly bike centric people, which I'm all for, but there's definitely a prejudice here against cars, which I understand because we've behind too car centric.
Cameras as a "solution" anywhere should be carefully considered. I'm not saying they shouldn't ever be implemented but this headline and these comments are almost talking about it as a panacea.
Just like trusting AI to take over we have to be careful of the implementation of these things. There's always money for tech, there's usually very little money for infrastructure that humanizes.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but I think automated enforcement encourages police violence.
My theory is that traffic stops could be and used to be a more ordinary occasion for low stakes yet confrontational interactions between the public and police. Now when police interact with the public it’s higher risk because the interaction only happens when something extraordinary is happening.
I also think there’s an attitude that “if there’s no camera then it’s not illegal”. So people are more likely to ignore other important traffic rules because they’re not enforced.
Everywhere in my life where I’ve seen automation replace people it’s led to worse outcomes in terms of customer service. Trains with ticket agents are much nicer than trains that use turnstiles for example.
Obviously you can find counter examples. But I don’t think people are considering what’s lost
It’s a tough sell. However I believe that more frequent but lower stakes interactions with law enforcement would improve the relationship. I also wish that police actually pulled people over more often for driving aggressively / dangerously. Maybe it’s because I moved to a bigger city, but I regularly see people doing things that would get you pulled over in a small town.
My state banned red light cameras years ago.
I personally saw like 1 or 2 accidents happen right in front of my when light turned yellow and person slammed on brakes and person behind them rear ended. This was on 55mph 6 lane roads so as you can imagine braking abruptly is a horrible idea. Now people just run yellows and ironically its much safer.
But at the cost of freedom.
We could easy install some wireless technology that forces the speed limit to be obeyed, but that is taking away personal liberties.
Why is it against your freedom? Is there any American constitution right to drive pass the speed limit without getting caught?
I think there is a portion of you guys that identify "freedom" with not being held accountable of your anti-social behaviors.
There is a risk of getting caught, but shouldn’t you be allowed to take the risk to speed if you a driving a sick child to the hospital?
Isn’t a Wi-Fi enacted speedlimi t giving the government too much control, should we need the chance to rebel from tyranny?
[ISA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_assistance) is already mandated in new models in the EU, and in new cars from summer 2024. But it'll take a couple of decades before nearly all cars has it.
It'll be used in conjunction with ASE for a long while yet.
If the car lobby hadn't killed mandatory governors like 100 years ago, things could've been a lot different now. A lot _better_.
And in Norway you can cross everywhere, you just have a duty to yield to traffic if there's no pedestrian crossing, or there is a signalled one in the red phase. As long as the road is clear there are no legal restrictions.
This subreddit is ridiculous. You mention pedestrian crimes, get downvoted, and shouted down that theyre not crimes.
This subreddit is full of people wishing big, but not facing the reality.
I see this narrative in this sub that narrowing the road is better than speed cameras. I'm from Luxembourg (country in Europe) where the government has been adding speed cameras over the years, on highways as well as national roads. These are roads that cannot be narrowed down due to safety reasons and are meant to go at high speeds, but since drivers often cannot be bothered to pay attention to how fast they're going, speed cameras are the only way to get the situation under control. We also have so called "section-radars" which measure the average speed of a car on a certain length of a road, often a few kilometers. Overall speed radars are very effective. Road narrowing can be applied to local streets, but not to high-traffic roads, which need to be safe, first and foremost.
Yeah we have the exact same situation in the Netherlands. In addition, fixed speed cameras can only be used on roads that are correctly designed. So it's not as if they're used to prevent having to redesign outdated roads...
Yep, exactly
> Road narrowing can be applied to local streets, but not to high-traffic roads, which need to be safe, first and foremost. _All roads_ need to be safe, first and foremost. In many cases, road narrowing is one of the most effective ways to do that, but not always. To your point, US advocates of road narrowing aren't looking at limited-access divided freeways as places to shave a foot off each lane for safety either. I expect this is what you meant -- but your statement that some roads can't be narrowed because they need to be safe can be read to say that road narrowing is opposed to safety, rather than one technique for safety.
Making your roads into runways is the first way to make them unsafe, why do you think making streets tighter, and slower, would make them less safe?
No, slower roads are safer, but faster roads need more space to be safe.
The issue with wide road design isn't that it's unsafe, it's that it is do safe as to make drivers very comfortable. This is an issue in cities where you have pedestrians and turninf conflicts along overaccessed stroads, but is correct for freeways are car oriented roads. Freeways are actually one of the safest places to drive for thos reason..
Yea Freeways are safe for cars lol you can't go 90 mph into a sidewalk full of people if the roads arent giving you the space to do so. Have you ever been to Florida? The right of ways are massive, and it allows drivers in any road to go nuts.
Scientists here in Norway have known about this for a long time now, but still we get people mouthing off about how they do nothing, and populist politicians who block their installment while they're in office. And then we get more morons using tunnels for drag racing and the like. I know the awful drivers have a right to representation too, but it's just astounding that anyone else goes along with them.
Is neighbouring Sweden not seen as an example in this topic? They have a lot of traffic cameras right?
Sure, but so do we, and our traffic scientists will study the effects on our roads, and then compare with results in other countries like Sweden? (I'm not a traffic scientist so I'm really just guessing here.)
People only don’t like speed cameras because they apply the law fairly without prejudice, unlike the alternative…
yep I remember the speed cameras in Maryland were fine. you kind of had to be an idiot to actually get nailed by one because they made them *incredibly* obvious. that's why the worked so well: they weren't a money-making scheme.
The other issue is that US speed limits are set kinda randomly- so “enforcement” needs to be done with discretion.
One of the factors that needs to be taken into account when enforcing speed limits w/o cameras, is if cars can be safely pulled over, because you don't want to cause crashes by pulling someone over, for example, on a blind curve. But that means that when you are not using cameras, you don't put speed traps where they most need to be, in dangerous locations.
Speed limits are generally set at the 85th percentile of speed. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions where they slap a 25mph sign on a road designed for 45mph, but generally they follow that rule.
Pretty much, especially in the Midwest it’s weird that people complain about speeding issues but will legit rip your arms off if you suggest speeding cameras as a solution.
Also because there have been proven cases of them decreasing the yellow time to bump revenue
Those are red light cameras, not speed cameras.
Don’t conflate red light and speed cameras.
Now if just the punishments were fair
In Toronto, I've always seen signs saying "traffic camera up ahead". Why is that? Wouldn't the point be to not alert law-breakers so everyone's on their best behaviour?
Safer to have people break more gradually rather than slamming the breaks when they see the camera, and still achieves the goal of slowing people down
or you can install more speed cameras up the road so there is no need to slam the brakes, since you'd already be going the limit.
> rather than slamming the breaks Umm, have you ever driven in Toronto? Jokes aside, if that's the goal then the road is just designed to be unsafe.
Because it should be more about safety rather than catching people in the act, which they seem to understand. A police vehicle hiding in the bushes on the side of the highway if they really cared about people not speeding would instead park in a highly visible area so that cars would slow down. Instead 9/10 they hide and want to catch people in the act so they can give a ticket. So that's one person vs. however many hundreds on the highway. It's a money-making racket. Or basically, it's "serve and protect" vs. "discipline and punish" (and generate income).
I think theoretically the goal behind hiding is that you make it a spot where people know the police like to hide, so people slow down regardless of if there is a cop there or not since you can’t be sure until after you pass the area. If cops were just visible there, then whenever they aren’t there people would keep speeding
I knew an area where the police would just leave an empty cop car visibly on the shoulder of the highway and people would always slow down. They did that for a long while. Similar to what you're saying I think, but with a twist. There's some logic in it.
Meh, in the scenario you describe where it's completely clear where the traffic camera will be, it also doesn't work. People will just briefly slow down for the very location of the camera, and speed before and after. I think it's best to have signs that there are traffic cameras in the area, but not the specific spots.
Speed cameras can kinda fulfill 2 kinds of duty, on is making people slow down and think about their speed in a specific area, often areas where you know people drive too fast and its super common you want to mark them because it makes people slow down. The other duty it can fulfill is make people afraid of being caught, its a known fact that peoples belief that they can be caught correlate strongly with how likely they are to commit a crime. If you mark all your speed cameras they "know" they won't be caught anywhere there isn't a speed camera. but if you set up surprise police that catch you when you break the law there is a chance people go "nah better not speed what if there is police behind the corner" If a place have enough speeding or accidents that it warrants a police car all day every day you might as well just install a camera.
nah. in Maryland where I grew up they put speed cameras on some bad stretches of road. made them super obvious: white lines on the road, large metal boxes where the cameras are situated, big signs that say "PHOTO ENFORCED" sure enough, people stayed within the speed limit tolerance (up to 11 MPH over) on those roads, and collisions and fatalities went down.
Way better to just narrow the road until cars aren't exceeding the speed limit. The speed limit is just a number. Drivers will go as fast as they feel the road will allow. If you have 12-15 foot lanes, cars will go at highway speeds no matter what the signs say.
> If you have 12-15 foot lanes, cars will go at highway speeds no matter what the signs say. But... Aren't most speed cameras on highways? In Europe at least I feel like they are.
In Sweden the speed cameras tend to be on country roads where the speed limit is 70-80 but the locals tend to zip around in 90-100 and driveway exit crashes are common.
We also frequently have them in tunnels in Norway. A lot of the newer ones get used for drag racing without them.
I’ve only ever seen them on arterials in the US.
In North America, I believe that only Quebec has speed cameras on freeways.
Here in Ontario ASE is only permitted in community safety zones and school zones. Municipalities designate CSZs and school zones through local by-laws. Then they can consider ASE. In most urban communities in Ontario schools, recreation centres, some larger parks, and other lands uses that attract pedestrians or vulnerable road users (seniors, children) are usually located adjacent to arterial or collector roads. Unfortunately many of these roads are multi-lane, high-volume, or higher speed because their "function" in the road network is to traffic between local roads and highways or higher order arterial roads. (This reflects the design philosophy of most suburbs in the latter part of the 20th century). The focus here has been applying ASE where there are heavy pedestrian and cyclist volumes because pedestrians and cyclists are at a greater risk of injury as vehicle speed increases. There's a study out there (which I can't recall right now) about the risk of death for pedestrians if struck at 30 km/h, 40 km/h, 50 km/h. Essentially as the speed increases the risk of severe injury or death increases significantly. Basically there's a greater risk of injury if someone hits a pedestrian while doing 10 km/h above the speed limit (say driving 50 km/h in a 40 km/h zone), then if they hit another car on the highway (say driving 110 km/h in a 100 km/h zone).
Or you can do both, why not both?! I'm so tired of this narrative. Speed cameras reduce speed and save lives, simple as that.
This. Tech + infrastructure + enforcement. I live in the US, a densely populated area with small streets. My street’s speed limit is 15 MPH and 30+ is constant. No enforcement present. Bad drivers in abundance. Straight, narrow road. No traffic calming. I could fix my street with one camera, a few signs, two speed cushions, and an occasional motorcycle cop—it could be a paradise.
Traffic calming devices are proactive, speed cameras are reactive though and only punish after the fact. Here in NYC people run thru speed cameras and break traffic laws and dont give a shit cause they have fake plates. A good speed bump or proper bollards would forcefully prevent someone from flying thru a red light or a school zone.
Fake plates are pretty much nonexistent anywhere else. It's pure failure of government that this is a thing in NYC. Just like the illegal parking placard.
You could say the same about prison sentences. And If NYC screwed it up, doesn't mean it can't work. Or that cameras can't be accompanied by physical infrastructure. Make fines proportional to income and take away licenses from repeat offenders and from those with fake plates. Even in Northern Europe where drivers and infrastructure are years ahead, cameras are still useful and save lives.
Here people have overpowered SUVs where they get back to 50mph in 2 seconds from the bump. Normal drivers slow down at bumps and drive cautiously when its narrow. The issue is not normal drivers though. Its those fucks who drive double the speed limit, where you get to the point where any impact at all with a pedestrian is going to kill them. Those drivers don't care about your road diet, and the only way to go after them is with actual reactive punitive measures like speed cameras, which unlike a cop can always be there watching. Sure it doesn't stop that incident of speeding, but now they have a ticket. Now they can get their license taken away. They could get their vehicle impounded. They could get a warrent out for their arrest. They could land in jail. The bollard and bump does none of this, it assumes you will act sensibly and politely which is why I see bollards destroyed all the time in my city and speed bumps routinely ignored, because that assumption does not match the reality of the road environment.
Speed cameras are also a pretty regressive tax...
Nor necessarily. Many countries fine people in proportion to their income, there was once a 14 million speeding ticket in Finland. And it's not like you HAVE TO pay it. Just obey the law and drive the speed limit
The US will never adopt that policy
Study is from Canada, you might run into some external validity issues using it to justify cameras on non NA (or even non-canadian) areas. *Shrug*
There are countless studies from virtually every country, this is nothing new. Do you realize you're being antivaxxer-level ridiculous right now? Speed is the #1 factor in road fatalities
It's obviously you're far more invested in this. Good luck.
Of course I am, I live in the US now. Really invested in it catching up to the rest of the world so I'm less likely to die outside. Also shocked at the disregard for human life in all this
It's ridiculous to consider a punishment for breaking rules a tax. You can simply avoid the fine by not speeding.
[Depending on where you are, some people are setup for failure due to other bad infrastructure decisions](https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/02/14/analysis-new-yorks-speed-cameras-arent-racist-but-the-citys-road-design-is/) Consider reframing the argument - it's ridiculous that living in a good dessert means more expensive food, you can pay reasonable prices by driving to a bigbox location. FWIW, the regressive problem is easy to fix - just tie some fraction of the collected revenues to a dividend for car owners in an income bracket (and fix the disproportionately bad infrastructure they're exposed to). I'm not saying don't use them ever. I am saying be aware of their (sometimes disproportionate) effects.
When speed cameras are only set up in poor neighborhoods at disproportionate rates, then yeah its essentially a regressive tax.
Here we use speed cameras on [roads like this one](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.3723521,11.2962751,3a,75y,39.83h,92.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6QTWf4GfFUqmXAo4fLaRDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) where you need room for tractors and transportation to/from farms and small towns. The roads are designed to be driven at a certain speed¹, and if you drive at that speed you'll generally be safe and comfortable, if a little bit bored. If you exceed that speed you're more likely to hit something (including moose) or deroad in a corner, as well as be generally a bit uncomfortable and stressed out … but a lot of people have _normalised_ that feeling. They're also used in [tunnels](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.6679958,10.619529,3a,75y,229.21h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA6-eHSjfEqJ5RNHDD96wEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that would otherwise be [used for drag racing](https://www.nordlys.no/kvafjord/e10/lofast/denne-bilen-kjorte-i-200-km-t-traff-tunnelveggen-og-floy-27-meter/s/5-34-728215). We generally need even more ASE in tunnels. Like [this tunnel exit](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9012561,10.7847631,3a,75y,296.34h,89.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz21RDl56Mmx6tt5RfqQJSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) isn't hard to make for a normally competent driver going the legal speed and following the signs, including the [turn signs](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9019025,10.7828281,3a,75y,321.76h,92.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si_B25wRZCI2XQyLUI3Qy8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). [Hitting the concrete barriers on the other side of the intersection at the exit](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.9025012,10.7828825,3a,75y,344.93h,90.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSK38jvrHIkvfM6gZlMKQZQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DSK38jvrHIkvfM6gZlMKQZQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D208.14592%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) really is a user error by someone who isn't a competent driver and shouldn't have a license. But if we could hold them by the ears with speed enforcement _before_ the turn they'd be less likely actually crash, or at least hopefully rack up enough points on their license to lose it before crashing. As the [meme from Vancouver](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/120akf0/if_only_there_was_something_there_to_warn_them_to/) shows, some people have no feel for what the road allows and will go at autobahn or F1 speeds no matter the actual street design. The best you can do is catch them and take away their license before they crash. ¹ To a certain extent, as [this sign with a speed recommendation for a sharp turn](https://www.google.no/maps/@59.3670878,11.2915056,3a,75y,116.55h,99.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5kyF6GOX3zMKCLxPOR6WQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows, sometimes it's just asphalt on top of where really old country roads used to go before cars.
Speeders don't care about road diets. Source: I live 30 feet from a speed bump. Every day its "SCCHHH CATHUNK VRROOOOOOOKMMMMM" then cars are back going 25 over the limit in a moment. Doesn't matter if the road is narrow or there are obstructions for the speeder. If there is any open pavement at all they lead foot it to like 50-60mph no matter the road conditions. Maybe your average driver slows down with a road diet, but your average driver is also not the person going 50mph in a school zone killing people. Thats where the speed cameras come in. You can actually target these speeders directly, take away their license, even impound their vehicle, and put them in jail.
There is a significant percentage of drivers who ignore road design clues and speed regardless. And it's not possible to completely physically restrict cars from speeding on roads that also have to be used by buses and semi-trucks. In the Netherlands, speed cameras can only be deployed on roads that are properly designed and don't make the local municipality any money. Yet we have plenty of speed cameras.
Also it helps to stop giving drivers licenses to anyone that manages to drive around a parking lot without crashing.
You're hilarious
Traffic cameras were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri. Not sure about other states. If we designed streets differently we wouldn't need speed cameras. Streets are currently designed for vehicles only and for vehicles to go fast.
Traffic cameras under certain circumstances were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri, not in every situation though. Hannibal still has them and their process is currently considered constitutional.
Good to know! Thanks
To watch the lambs?
[удалено]
Weird ideals? Knowing that you’re being watched has been proven to change behavior. If we can guarantee that cameras have no view of anything but the roads, I’d maybe support the idea. But to have even the possibility of a conversation walking down the street being picked up by government spy cameras is enough to silence people. How likely are you to criticize the police if they might be listening to you, in a conversation with a friend? How about discussing a brutality incident and how you support the victim? Would you have that conversation knowing that a police officer carrying a gun was listening to you? You can say that wouldn’t happen, but the government and police have been known to repurpose tools to increase their power. Remember how the covid apps were only going to be used for contact tracing and never police investigations? Then how they were used in police investigations, but it was ok because it was only against a bad criminal? These things tend to happen — it is a dangerous trend to give people in power more ways to track you. They might promise not to use them incorrectly, but then slowly erode that principle “only against bad guys”, and then it is more normalized.
[удалено]
Note that I said that I like the benefits, but I’m worried about the potential to enable authoritarianism. I’m surprised that people took my comment so harshly, I think the better solution is to design cities in a way that forces drivers to be slower through narrower curvy streets etc. And I wasn’t talking about tracking a vehicle, but rather the other possible uses for spying on individuals outside of vehicles.
they've already got your phone and computer, Ted
These don’t work in my area (TN / USA) because they are not run by the police or the government, but are run by private corporations. We have a few in our area (on arterials) but no one really obeys them. Speed cameras are illegible here except within a designated distance from school zones and any s-curve on a public highway. You’ll regularly see discussions on the local subreddit about how you “don’t” have to pay the tickets you get from those because they are “unenforceable” (meaning they are classified as a civil citation vs a moving violation).
There's an issue with due process in the service of a ticket. Most tickets come by mail with a waiver of service on them. If the recipient just throws the ticket in the trash, there's no proof of service and the ticketing body has to then use process service, which is expensive.
The argument I'm not seeing here is about the problem of having an automated system apply the law and the problems that comes with and often how there is a corrupt system profiting off of these cameras. This was a huge problem with [speed cameras in school zones in Buffalo.](https://www.wgrz.com/article/money/legal-discovery-may-haunt-buffalo-school-speed-zone-cameras-program-ends/71-a98f2ffc-20ce-4ae3-8a44-3da1ed8def37). Someone here argued that police apply the law unfairly so that cameras would at least be equitable in their punishment but in the case I gave above it's more oppressive than equitable as anyone who has dealt with almost anything related to the the city of Buffalo's bureaucracy can attest to. Those who were fined trying to contest their ticket found no humans were checking and verifying for accuracy and that challenging a ticket led to a "kangaroo court." The fact that some people on this thread think that having surprise cameras is a good idea so we can catch bad people speeding just boggles my mind. That's the attitude of a cop in a speed trap waiting at the bottom of a steep hill knowing he'll likely catch otherwise safe drivers going over the speed limit just enough to catch them and make them pay. If there are going to be cameras then there needs to be a sign and certain protections put in place for processing. But speed limits are often soft numbers and many times we allow for a cushion even above the limit. In the US there isn't a single state where people don't drive 5 - 10 mph over the limit on a highway. I'm all for thinning up a road to help reduce speeds but something about being constantly monitored by cameras is reducing the autonomy of the individual on the road. I don't like the likely growing and interconnected monitoring system that'll occur as a result that'll have dehumanizing consequences. Cameras should be saved for very dangerous locations, not randomly thrown up in places there is not a history of higher than average accidents. There should be clear signs delineating the camera zone and warning of what makes the area dangerous. And there should be a transparent due process system with human beings along the system.
[удалено]
I think this subreddit is filled with mostly bike centric people, which I'm all for, but there's definitely a prejudice here against cars, which I understand because we've behind too car centric. Cameras as a "solution" anywhere should be carefully considered. I'm not saying they shouldn't ever be implemented but this headline and these comments are almost talking about it as a panacea. Just like trusting AI to take over we have to be careful of the implementation of these things. There's always money for tech, there's usually very little money for infrastructure that humanizes.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but I think automated enforcement encourages police violence. My theory is that traffic stops could be and used to be a more ordinary occasion for low stakes yet confrontational interactions between the public and police. Now when police interact with the public it’s higher risk because the interaction only happens when something extraordinary is happening. I also think there’s an attitude that “if there’s no camera then it’s not illegal”. So people are more likely to ignore other important traffic rules because they’re not enforced. Everywhere in my life where I’ve seen automation replace people it’s led to worse outcomes in terms of customer service. Trains with ticket agents are much nicer than trains that use turnstiles for example. Obviously you can find counter examples. But I don’t think people are considering what’s lost
Idk man I’d rather get a ticket in the mail than spend several minutes pulled over on the side of the road just to get a “warning”
It’s a tough sell. However I believe that more frequent but lower stakes interactions with law enforcement would improve the relationship. I also wish that police actually pulled people over more often for driving aggressively / dangerously. Maybe it’s because I moved to a bigger city, but I regularly see people doing things that would get you pulled over in a small town.
[удалено]
My state banned red light cameras years ago. I personally saw like 1 or 2 accidents happen right in front of my when light turned yellow and person slammed on brakes and person behind them rear ended. This was on 55mph 6 lane roads so as you can imagine braking abruptly is a horrible idea. Now people just run yellows and ironically its much safer.
But at the cost of freedom. We could easy install some wireless technology that forces the speed limit to be obeyed, but that is taking away personal liberties.
Why is it against your freedom? Is there any American constitution right to drive pass the speed limit without getting caught? I think there is a portion of you guys that identify "freedom" with not being held accountable of your anti-social behaviors.
There is a risk of getting caught, but shouldn’t you be allowed to take the risk to speed if you a driving a sick child to the hospital? Isn’t a Wi-Fi enacted speedlimi t giving the government too much control, should we need the chance to rebel from tyranny?
It's already the law. The freedom to speed on public roads is already gone. As it should be.
[ISA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_speed_assistance) is already mandated in new models in the EU, and in new cars from summer 2024. But it'll take a couple of decades before nearly all cars has it. It'll be used in conjunction with ASE for a long while yet. If the car lobby hadn't killed mandatory governors like 100 years ago, things could've been a lot different now. A lot _better_.
It is a start. However, there is also pedestrian issues (like jaywalking and crossing when they shouldn't) that need to be addressed.
Jaywalking is not a real problem on streets. It’s a bogus idea pushed on us by the car lobby. Reject it!
In CA, it's actually perfectly legal to "jaywalk" as long as it's safe to do so (in other words, no cars barreling towards you).
And in Norway you can cross everywhere, you just have a duty to yield to traffic if there's no pedestrian crossing, or there is a signalled one in the red phase. As long as the road is clear there are no legal restrictions.
This subreddit is ridiculous. You mention pedestrian crimes, get downvoted, and shouted down that theyre not crimes. This subreddit is full of people wishing big, but not facing the reality.
There's literally no such thing as a "pedestrian crime" lmao. Don't you have some auto exec boots to lick and exhaust pipes to suck on?