- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
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.
Narrowing streets and adding speed bumps is expensive, and adding curves just isn’t possible in most places. Why do that when you can put up a camera that’s cheaper and are effective at reducing speeds, and thus accidents and fatalities. By picking the more expensive solution you’re basically asking safe drivers and non-drivers to pay more in taxes so that reckless drivers don’t have to pay tickets.
The only argument against them is the one the guy laid out in the op-ed, i want to speed and don’t want to have a cost for my reckless driving.
I agree with your counterargument about cost, but also at the same time hey we somehow had the money to build the road wrong in the first place…
I am pro speed reduction measures, camera’s included.
but this is absolutely not true, they can and will continue to be abused for profit, sometimes to the detriment of safety.
No idea what the numbers looks like but it’s greater than zero, i suspect by quite a bit
edit : i fully understand that this link is incredibly bias, i’m posting it to show that instances do exist in general.
https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
These are for red lights rather than speed but the premise i’m getting at is that people will do unsafe things with traffic cameras for profit.