cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/44712264

These up-eds usually complain that photo radar would be fine if the radar worked properly. This one doesn’t even do that. It just complains that speed limits aren’t fair and now drivers have to change their behavior. jfc

It is true that drivers can avoid such tickets by sticking to the posted speed limits, but it is also true that drivers are hardly ever expected to strictly observe those limits.

…

It’s like the generally accepted contract between drivers and police – just drive at a reasonable speed and you’ll be fine – has been broken.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-photo-radar-is-becoming-increasingly-common-that-doesnt-make-it-any/

    • @Senal@programming.devEnglish
      -5•11 days ago

      You are absolutely going to need some peer review or corroborating reference for an article produced and published by an organisation who’s entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article.

      That’s “A study on how smoking does not cause lung cancer posted on the Marlboro website” levels of suspected bias.

      It’s probably legit, but it looks suspicious.

        • @Senal@programming.devEnglish
          -7•10 days ago

          Ah, I see, weak citation then deflection.

          That gives a pretty accurate understanding of what to expect from a conversation with you.

          If you don’t understand that questioning the impartiality of a source is a rebuttal I’m not sure there’s much else for us to discuss.

          No need to further rebut weak citations, have fun with your delusions.

      • @ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
        2•10 days ago

        What about peer reviewed articles showing that photo radars don’t work? Published by organization who’s entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article of course. That would also be interesting to see.

        • @Senal@programming.devEnglish
          -2•10 days ago

          i’d imagine they exist and would be equally if not more suspicious because fiscal benefit tends to bring a higher likelihood of shenanigans.

          By “don’t work”, do you mean the physical camera’s are unreliable and malfunction or that they don’t work as a measure to reduce speeding and increase safety? both ?