214
Doug Ford banned speed cameras. The City of Ottawa posted the raw speed data from before and after the ban. This chart shows the percentage of drivers going 15km/h or more over the posted limit. (feddit.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/ontario@lemmy.ca
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (12 children)

Speed cameras definitely work, they're getting better at catching folks as the technology matures.

Of course, they're also a form of state surveillance, generally deployed as a money printer, and generally distract drivers (you see those lines on the road, your vision tunnels, you check speed, and you lose peripheral for about 1--2 seconds).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The seatbelt and phone cameras here in Australia are rather interesting to view the captures from. Working for a government body people would come in to our self service area and want to view the photos (which can be done at home, on your phone or pc); they'd get in a bit of a huff and puff once they saw the images.

    The angles these cameras are placed get most angles drivers try to hide their phone usage, and the resolution is decent considering the cameras distance away.

    Cameras catching distracted drivers are a great win in my eyes, no one should be fumbling their phone while trying to drive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    By that logic, posted speed limits are a hazard to pedestrians because they distract drivers who then check their goddamn speed. I mean you must be joking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Apples to oranges - a speed camera necessitates and immediate check and possible adjustment; a speed limit is a delayable check where safety can be evaluated first.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    You are stretching so fucking hard to split that hair. Yes, I can see that they are slightly different. They are apples to oranges, but you would like to pretend its apples to riding lawnmowers. It's ridiculous, you can see that, right? And it's just a distraction from reality and evidence.

    The OP chart is one item from a huge consistent body of evidence that shows that drivers are perfectly capable of adapting to the presence of speed cameras. Speed cameras are not a hazard to pedestrian safety and if that isn't a bad faith argument, buddy, you're actually literally deluding yourself. In fact they are a huge benefit to pedestrian safety. That is why this legislation is not likely to stand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I think this is the difference - you're assuming a distracted driver is only a danger to pedestrians. Big mistake.

    The op's chart shows a difference in speeds, not a difference in incident rates; you've inferred higher and/or more serious incident rates from a speed chart. If I wanted to outright attack the argument my line would be "was there any measure of speed before and after in areas outside the camera's capture zone"; since most drivers appear to just slow down for the camera and re-accelerare after. One could argue the chart shows no change in driver behaviour, merely driver performance in an enforcement area. You're conflating the metric (speeds measured before and after in the same spot) with what it should measure (driver compliance to the law when using the road).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If you get distracted from a speed camera you should not be allowed to drive. You are the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, I think pneumatic road tubes are far more effective for capturing cleaner data on vehicle speeds over time, since they are less visible and likely unnoticed by many drivers. They aren't there to fine drivers, but I'm sure with a small hidden camera, they could work in the same way. Not sure why speed cameras are so visible, since people almost always in my experience, will speed back up after leaving the area of the speed camera, negating the benefits swiftly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    That's exactly why they are visible. People don't slow down because they abstractly understand that speed cameras exist in the universe. They slow down where they know there is a camera, and that is exactly the behaviour that is being exploited. Cameras are intended as a location-specific safety intervention that (according to all practical data) makes drivers slaughter vulnerable road users significantly less than when there isn't a camera. You can argue that it's a bandaid but I think that would mean you were trying to solve a problem other than the one the camera was deployed for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I agree, it's just that cameras became targets for vandals to destroy, negating all benefits of the camera. And somehow, the law doesn't apply to the vandals, because they belong to the angry car mob, that always gets their way, because the cops are basically just like them, sick of driving, but forced to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent