![]()
post
On the one hand, omnipresent surveillance is bad and ripe for abuse.
On the other, I feel like the haphazard and selective enforcement of traffic laws by police officers is also really bad. Cops can selectively enforce laws so poor people or black people or whatever out-group suffers more. A machine should be impartial.
On the last hand, no traffic enforcement is probably going to get people killed. So that's not desirable.
Also, fines are problematic. Fines should probably scale with wealth, but also it shouldn't be a revenue source because that's a perverse incentive.
Some countries do scalable fines, so you'll see headlines about a rich person being given a $75k speeding ticket or something.
I do agree with the concept of traffic laws, but I went back to my home state of Iowa recently and it was seriously comical, cameras everywhere, stoplights but just randomly along the road, everyone was driving exactly the speed limit and I was going insane. Having humans involved in policing does introduce biases but it also introduces common sense and good judgement.
I like the idea of mobile camera units, so bad spots can be focused on, people understand that it's a bad spot, but it doesn't turn into a permanent fixture.
Wait until they find out about the gold-plated interconnects.
Way too much work, too much skill and chemicals and workbench required. Copper is = cut it off, bring to scrap yard, get paid cash no questions. We need meth, if we were able to profitably dissolve gold plating, we wouldn't be meth heads, we'd be in charge of successful companies and snort coke all day.
We should also state how much that is in dollar bucks.
Just about $23 per camera where I'm at
how much cameras until i can buy 1 portiom of black tar heroine?
Bright shiny copper is just under $4/lb where I am. It varies by location and what your recyclers will pay.
I heard the ones in school zones actually have 10lb of copper and a chocolate bar inside
That's like $27 per camera or so.
Friendly reminder that no technology is ever intrinsically good or bad, that is determined by who wields it and to what end.
There seems to be 2 main camps in this thread.
Fuck the police, and fuck shitty drivers.
Both camps are correct.
Gonna be downvoted, because apparently this is car brain central, but the amount of mental gymnastics people will do to make red light camera enforcement "bad" is crazy.
The US' private company control over these cameras notwithstanding.
Fuck me, so many people die on on roads, and especially at intersections.
The city I work for put up Flock cameras with specific instructions from Council that they were only to be used for identification of cars flagged in active warrants.
Within a week of their installation, police used the cameras to track the movements of someone who filed a complaint.
Sounds like a police/privacy problem, not the idea of having cameras at all.
Police should need a warrant to access the videos.
The software should not log licence plates of every single car that comes past.
The software should be open source and developed by the public sector.
I agree what's in place in the US is a privacy nightmare, but the idea of having cameras in general isn't fundamentally bad.
Skill issue USA, git gud.
The US’ private companies
this is entirely the problem, because they're turning over info to ICE and other agencies and it's being used oppressively.
Hence my carve out. I don't support the privacy nightmare the US has.
I do support road safety cameras in general, if managed properly.
People don't have the right to have no consequences for their dangerous behaviour.
I do support road safety cameras in general, if managed properly.
yeah that's the rub. what municipality do you trust to manage them properly in this day and age? I've seen horror stories from all over the US, UK....
I fucking hate, absolutely despise the vroom vroom dickheads who make these technologies desirable. I want them to be held accountable but am not sure it's worth the ice goons and yokel yokels who will abuse their capabilities.
I just don't think having this kind of surveillance state apparatus is ever worth it I don't want the government or private companies tracking my every move.
I don't even own a car and I want these cameras gone.
I don't want the government or private companies tracking my every move
This is an issue with how the cameras are operated. I'm taking issue with people complaining that these cameras exist at all.
People claiming no system could ever be privacy-preserving aren't being very imaginative.
I agree the surveillance state is bad, but taking a picture of someone running a red light and sending them a fine is a good thing, sorry.
What's bad is allowing cameras to passively record every single licence plate at all times and store that information. A speed or red light camera should only take a photo/video when it detects someone speeding/running a red light, and no other information should be stored.
Shout out to Road Guy Rob
People enjoy driving dangerously. They don't see it as risky because they haven't been killed in a crash yet.
Cops enforcing traffic? Bad.
Cameras enforcing traffic? Bad.
very few people would complain about traffic police if the cops didn't carry guns or were not trained to pit maneuver you for not wearing a seatbelt
So, we agree. This is specifically a US police problem.
But many people argue against speed cameras and red light cameras in general, as if they have the right to endanger people's lives.
Pit maneuvers are insane, and aren't done in most other civilised countries.
No, this is a transportation problem as well. Cameras arent a solution to the problem of too many cars and carcentric infrastructure design lol, its literally a bandaid solution that only affects the poor negatively and no one else. People who complain about the cameras have every right to complain.
Before any camera is installed, cities should instead be spending that money on reworking street design and getting more buses and banning more cars. Capitalism fixes these problems by letting poor people foot the bill, socialism solves this by making rich people pay their fair share. Are you against taxing the rich instead for safer roads by banning cars on bus-only streets?
Funnily enough, this is my even more preferred solution haha
I am for public transport centric cities, where you can safely walk across streets, and cities are designed for people, not cars.
I am 100% for everything you've said, including socialism.
It's just I'm also living in the world as it currently is, and if we're gonna have car-centric hell holes, I at least want to make breaking the rules have consequences, so car centrism is A BIT safer. Income based fines to boot.
Most certainly is a band-aid, though. Do agree.
But I just get pissed when dickheads think speeding isn't a bit deal, or red-light cameras are just for revenue raising, as if driving a massive hunk of metal is a serious responsibility, not to be taken lightly.
You can complain, but youre getting mad at the symptoms and the cameras are only a solution to the symptoms and dont address any real problem. People should be holding their governors, mayors, city councils, and police departments 100% responsible for poor planning and decision making and not applaud them for a band aid solution like cameras. The proper response on cameras to your government should be: Try again, with effort this time. People should be visiting neighborhood meetings to talk about these problems cameras instead of getting angry at people running lights, all Im saying. Lets direct that energy at the real problems and the people who are the only ones capable of making the necessary changes instead of just picking the pickets of the poor please.
I can condone taking down pedestrian surveillance, but people who drive cars should follow the rules or get fucked.
It is not necessary to install photo enforcement cameras to get people to follow the rules.
That would be fine if they did anything to increase safety but studies have shown it actually increases accidents by 3-8% https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095756415302786
From that study:
"red light running photo enforcement installed experienced 4 percent reduction in fatal crashes for intersections with multilane approaches, and 48 percent reduction for intersections with single-lane approaches."
Reduction means LESS.
Yay! Crashes! 🥰
They would remove the camera not the traffic light. I don't think that would cause an accident
The camera only snaps a picture when people blow the traffic light. If everybody obeyed the traffic lights then nobody would ever get their car's picture taken with the camera.
They have speed and traffic light cameras made by the same companies and they are pushing them out indiscriminately.
Also why should that company get money if someone speeds or goes through a red light? Why do they get that privilege but no one else does? The government getting fines is one thing but a private company is another
They have speed and traffic light cameras made by the same companies and they are pushing them out indiscriminately.
Who's "they"?
Also why should that company get money if someone speeds or goes through a red light?
Around here, the company doesn't get money. The fine is sent by the government and the government gets paid. I don't know why it's different for you, sounds like you need to change your government.
I live in Atlanta so they is the city of Atlanta I guess. I got a random fine in the mail and it was from a private company I don't remember their name but the same cameras are all over my town now.
The cameras are in places where people have to drive everyday and the flow of traffic is usually slightly higher than the limit. You can't avoid going by them so you are tracked no matter what. And if you forget and follow the flow of normal traffic you are getting a letter from the company in the mail asking for $200.
The reason the camera is there is because of the crashes that happened when it wasn't.
That's not true. We have a ton of these popping up in my neighborhood in places where there haven't been issues.
Also they are owned by private companies that pocket most of the money you pay the fine with.
Why do I need 5 of these on my way to work in the morning? That's 5 times where if I accidentally went too fast I have to pay a private company $200. That's up to 10 times a day I am at risk of a random fee to some company. Insane that you want that
This comment is provided to you by the "the light was really yellow" crowd
My only real issue with it is that there are a ton of them now and they are privately owned. If the fine went to the city that would be a different story.
Imagine if next they put a sensor right in your car so if you ever go over a limit you always get a fine. Would you still be into that? Would you buy that car?
That is actually a legitimate concern. Add it to the long list of "technologies that are cool and good except when capitalism"
privately owned
Sounds like a shithole country issue. Normal countries have a police and judiciary.
Would you still be into that?
Ow yes please. If that's what it takes for people like you to drive according to the rules, absofuckinglutely yes.
Maybe don't speed
Cool, sucks that we went with the vibes feels like it should help solution then.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/.
We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital.
"Evidence clearly shows that camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights. In one study in Virginia, red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent." Seems pretty effective to me.
"When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. " So, a net increase in accidents. I can't make their numbers match up with their conclusion.
"Evidence clearly shows that camera programs are effective at decreasing the number of vehicles running red lights. In one study in Virginia, red light cameras reduced the number of total drivers running red lights by 67 percent." Seems pretty effective to me.
At reducing that one behavior? Sure, but we also have to look at what other impacts it has.
We could reduce the number of people running red lights by 100% if we removed traffic lights, doesn't mean it's a good solution.
"When the Houston cameras were removed, angle accidents increased by 26 percent. However, all other types of accidents decreased by 18 percent. " So, a net increase in accidents. I can't make their numbers match up with their conclusion.
The next sentence is "Approximately one-third of all Houston intersection accidents are angle accidents. This suggests that the program’s drawbacks canceled out its benefits."
Say there are 100 accidents, 33 of which are from people running red lights.
A 26% decrease in red light running accidents results in 9 fewer accidents from running red lights. (.26*33=8.58)
An 18% increase in other accidents results in 12 more accidents from people slamming on their brakes. (.18*66=11.88)
So a net increase of 3 accidents.
Different sorts of accidents. Red light cameras result in more fender benders, fewer T-bonings. In your example, 9 fewer T-bonings at the expense of 12 extra fender benders.
From the article: "We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital."
If you have any research that contradicts it I'm open to reading it but the evidence indicates there are just as many serious accidents.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356316/ "Red light cameras (RLCs) reduce injuries but may have no effect on total crashes"
https://blinksandbuttons.net/are-red-light-cameras-effective/ "Studies have produced mixed results over the years, but several key findings can be highlighted:
Reduction in Fatalities: Many studies indicate a reduction in fatal accidents at intersections equipped with red light cameras. A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that states with red light camera enforcement saw a decrease of 24% in fatal red-light running crashes.
Decrease in Injuries: In addition to reducing fatalities, the same IIHS report noted that injuries at intersections also declined, with a 14% decrease in injuries related to red-light violations.
Overall Accident Rates: While some studies show a decrease in severe accidents, others note that total accident rates may increase. This is partly attributed to the phenomenon known as “rear-end collisions,” where vehicles that stop suddenly to avoid running a red light may lead to accidents."
Do you want me to go on?
"Sir! The unfed masses are tearing down cameras to sell them for food!"
"BUT WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES? HAVE THEY NO SENSE OF COMMUNITY?!"
i mean, car crashes very much also often lead to death
i don’t think speed cameras are a good way to prevent car crashes, but straight up acting like car crashes aren’t a problem worth mitigating is extremely silly
Christ. Calm down.
Look, I will tell you this: I hear you, and I will. I know, I read some of my general comments today and, well, I should chill out a little. Sometimes it's a lot of stress about the state of the world you know, sometimes about my life situation, about existential musings, about this and that, sometimes I vex revolutionary, what are you gonna do about it, fight me? Just kidding, I just wanna let you know that I read what you said, and yes, I should calm down. Sometimes it just gets to you, you know? It just like a hollow echo inside your soul, bouncing from one point to the other trying to find its place, like, and it just won't stop buzzing around in there, but I guess that's the case for most people anyways, so, anyway, likewise, and may god have mercy on our souls.
Government surveillance tracking device you mean? Enrich the local cops devices? Over half of violations monies collected goes to the corporations that market them to local and state officials with lavish dinners and vacations devices? Financial incentive to calibrate them to flag innocent drivers knowing there is little to no recourse against the company devices? 5.5 lbs you say?
This is brilliant.
Dangerous roads are brilliant?
The camera doesn't make the road safer it makes it more expensive
top 93 comments