Depending on what you have going on down there, you’ll either want to tuck your parts into your socks or your socks into your parts.

Here’s hoping they face many, many more.

For me personally, I think more cops isn’t the ideal solution. Instead, I think traffic calming measures should be introduced to make drivers feel less safe if they choose to speed.

Better enforcement is 100% necessary, and I think speed cams can be a good way to prevent dangerous driving through the threat of enforcement. That said, I also think in terms of cost efficiency that direct preventative measures such as speed cushions, bollards, trees, medians, sidewalk extensions, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. will be more cost-effective to some point than and should be used in conjunction with speed cams.

people treat speeding like an oopsie daisy

And often even this is too generous. Most drivers I’ve seen in the US treat speeding like a calculated risk that they feel out over time. They will with an unambiguous understanding of what the speed limit is choose to not just exceed it, but to actively target a speed that’s (usually 5 mph or 8 kph) over it.

Oh yeah, just to be clear, I’m a massive fan of urbanist channels like NJB and absolutely stan the shit out of traffic calming measures. Give me more trees on the sides of the road to make it feel narrower. Give me speed humps. Give me medians. Give me sidewalk extensions. Give me roundabouts. Inject that shit into my veins. I see speed cameras as just one tool in an arsenal to create safer driving conditions, and mercifully, it seems like the US is starting to warm up to those.

I’m pretty sure we’re 100% on the same page here as far as traffic calming measures go, and I think we’d both agree too that if there are fines, they need to be adjusted to account for income. (Here’s an upvote by the way to counteract that downvote; this is one of like two reasonable takes I’ve seen in this thread against speed cameras.)

It should feel like a “gotcha” moment, though, or it only properly enforces speeds near the speed camera. If you can’t be certain that you’re not going to run into a speed camera but you have a general understanding that they’re around, you’re going to be much more likely not to speed in general versus just when you see the sign telling you to slow down. The reduction in speed from the sign is still better than nothing, but it lets drivers compartmentalize where there are “safe” zones to speed, and that partly defeats the purpose.

Nice of you to take that out of context.

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths

They know they’re objectively beneficial, and now they just want to firmly measure to what extent that is. They nonetheless express zero doubt that it’s positive based on the existing evidence.

If only speed cameras worked to lower the speed anyone travels at

They do. They objectively do. How are there so many people all over this thread just confidently asserting complete, disprovable bullshit, and why is it getting upvoted? From the Cochrane systematic review:

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

• I’ve never gotten a speeding ticket or pulled over for speeding.
• I don’t speed.

I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I’m sorry about your past speeding ticket(s). I hope you can someday find the strength to move on and become a more mindful driver.

American driver entitlement is the purest, most potent form of entitlement.

I don’t know if you knew this, but with regard to US Interstates, there’s a common saying that goes “nine you’re fine, ten you’re mine.” It’s essentially saying “under 15 kph you’re fine, but over 15 you’re busted for speeding”. That is, if you want to exceed the already quite high speed limit, you should feel safe doing up to 9 additional mph over that. And they’re actually not wrong; many police literally don’t enforce traffic law up to that point, or they only do so if they really have a bee in their bonnet. In large part this is because nearly every driver’s doing it, which is one of the main reasons why cameras are useful: it doesn’t have to stop your car, ask if you know why it pulled you over, listen to you try talking your way out of a ticket, be subject to human biases such as ethnicity, gender, and personality in determining whether to let you go with just a warning or not, and generate enough paperwork to disincentivize the enforcement of traffic law as written.

Except in a school zone, if you get pulled over doing within 5 mph (8 kph) of the speed limit, it’s seen by drivers as a huge power trip and something you should gaslight the court into believing you didn’t do, and from 5–10 mph, it’s basically seen as getting unlucky. The state of speeding in the US is so dire that even asserting that speed limits should be enforced as marked is something that will get you shouted down.

I’m glad I could help to make your day just a bit more magical. 🎆🎇✨

Boy, I can just feel the salt from a past speeding ticket coming from this comment.

Maybe stop being a shitty driver who feels entitled to break traffic laws designed to keep people safe from entitled, careless idiots in their two-tonne metal box. 💀 You’re whining elsewhere in the thread about a 37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers), so you’re not even complaining about accuracy so much as how much illegal driving you think you should be able to get away with. Speed limits are already across the board much higher than they should be to cater to cars; if you don’t feel like you’re competent enough to do something as trivial as stay exactly the speed limit when they’re already unfairly high in your favor, then it’s a limit for a reason: you can go a mph or two slower than it, and you won’t, like, die or anything.

Why on Earth is this unfounded argument getting upvoted so heavily? Objectively the science says that it reduces injuries and deaths. Per the linked Cochrane systematic review of 35 studies:

Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

People on the Internet will just upvote the most confidently incorrect shit as long as it has enough confidence behind it and it vaguely aligns with their preconceptions, I swear.

The authors of the systematic review had no reservations in asserting that the cameras lowered injuries and deaths, so how do they not affect safety? Do the cameras emit cancer-causing 5G beams or something that bring the number of injuries and deaths back into equillibrium?

Not if the speed camera runs your plates to determine you’re poor and notifies the police of an inbound precariat, letting them use their psychokinesis to entrap you into speeding.

So it sounds to me like you’re not disputing the fact that they have a protective effect against injury and death. Maybe you should clarify that in your prior comment if that’s how you feel.

Your own study links to a Cochrane systematic review which states the following:

Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

You linked a study that took place along a single 26-mile stretch of road in Arizona, and while it does some good toward controlling for confounding variables, a single, highly localized study simply isn’t as robust as a Cochrane systematic review.

Moreover, the study you link focuses on the number of collisions, while the Cochrane review focuses on injuries and deaths. What we were talking about before was – say it with me – injuries and deaths because of entitled, speeding drivers.

Would it generate revenue if people didn’t feel so entitled to put others’ lives in greater jeopardy to get to their destination 30 seconds faster? No? Not speeding is the easiest thing in the world; it’s an objective number not to exceed that you directly control and that your car tells you in real time, but at least in the US, drivers are in an arms race to see what kind of bullshit they can get away with, making cops less likely to pull them over. This means that when the average driver can – without warning and with precision – be dinged for speeding, they throw a tantrum about it and act like they’ve been victimized.

Ticketing does disproportionately affect the poor, and we should reform ticketing to change based on income, but can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the people doing this are doing it because they’re protesting socioeconomic injustice? Or because they’re entitled drivers who want to be able to speed with impunity? It’s the drivers here being entitled and thinking that they’re above the law. Personal vehicles are a privilege, not a right, but drivers don’t treat it like one. Over 100 people per day die to motor vehicle crashes in the US alone, and kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity; if drivers don’t like speed limits, they’re more than welcome to stay off the streets and stop thinking their personal convenience trumps people’s right to life.

!fuckcars@lemmy.world

The absolute entitlement.

Edit: For those not wanting to read through this whole thing, speed cameras have been shown objectively in a systematic analysis of 35 studies to reduce traffic injuries and deaths.

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors’ conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

Edit 2: That being said, speed cams are objectively helpful aren’t the sole tool we should be using. Traffic calming is enormously beneficial and cost-effective for making places with roads safer for drivers and pedestrians.