Submitted by NewsHugh t3_125zzo4 in Connecticut
optifreebraun t1_je7i09s wrote
It's interesting how there seem to be many PR folks on reddit when it comes to speed cameras. These things do almost nothing - particularly when it's not in fixed locations without warning - to slow down traffic, but is a great revenue generator for the companies that make these devices.
Want to slow down traffic in construction zones? Hire more cops to visibly sit in these areas - nothing slows down traffic like a visible police cruiser.
Cue the speed camera PR folks arguing otherwise in 3, 2,1 ...
pond_minnow t1_je966l0 wrote
Reckon it ain't just that, but more. The govt needs more data for the surveillance state. They already track the movements of cars in cities, covering about 70% of adults as per Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology. Time to get more data from the suburbs and rural areas by covering highways. Maybe towns next? As usual, the pretext tugs on the heart strings. Think of the children road workers. Why if you don't agree, you must not care about dead people.
Speaking of the workers and revenue though.. this is going to rinse lower-class workers. June 1 min. wage goes up to $15/hr. Get caught lacking on your way to work because your brain was mindlessly on "autopilot" for a wee bit? 2nd offense: 12% of your weekly take-home. 3rd offense? 30% of it! That's fair.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How fitting. Fuck this pilot project and all automated enforcement.
PS: I love how your comment brought out a literal shill. Can't make it up.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea343y wrote
>Speaking of the workers and revenue though.. this is going to rinse lower-class workers. June 1 min. wage goes up to $15/hr. Get caught lacking on your way to work because your brain was mindlessly on "autopilot" for a wee bit? 2nd offense: 12% of your weekly take-home. 3rd offense? 30% of it! That's fair.
Gee whiz, and there's no way whatsoever to avoid it except not driving more than 15 mph over the posted limit when you're just a few feet away from vulnerable workers.
It's annoying and wrong that the fines are so much more onerous the poorer you are, but the problem there is more that the penalty is immaterial to the rich than that it's unfair to the poor.
pond_minnow t1_jecih0d wrote
You are making the assumption that there will be no creep. That it will stay solely in the realm of road workers. I am pressing X to doubt.
dkdaniel t1_je7oxvv wrote
"Please don't disagree with me. If you disagree with me you're a shill"
optifreebraun t1_je7zbmv wrote
"I'm a shill that vigorously defends traffic cams but I'll gaslight anyone that calls me a shill."
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea41iu wrote
You know, people used to say this exact same kind of thing about seatbelts.
You might have to accept that what you want to be true, and what somebody is willing to tell you is true, is not necessarily what is true.
The CDC:
>Automated speed camera enforcement is effective in reducing speed and speed-related crashes. In a Cochrane review of studies through 2010 evaluating speed cameras, all studies measuring speed or speeding saw reductions when the cameras were present.6 All studies in the Cochrane review measuring crashes also showed reductions when the cameras were present. More recent research has also found reductions in speeding or injury crashes when cameras were present.
Link, with citations
optifreebraun t1_jeaeqj9 wrote
False equivalency - a seatbelt citation does not directly result in revenue for a private company making seatbelts with massive lobbying ability.
There are better solutions than cameras, yet the insistence of certain Redditors that cameras are the best solution makes it pretty clear we have some PR shills for these camera companies.
Because come on - when in real life have you ever seen anyone actually defend these cameras so vigorously?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeag3bz wrote
That's a nice pile of rhetoric but I've cited actual studies. What do you have?
First off, goalposts: your claim wasn't that the problem with speed cameras in work zones is that a private company receives a portion of the revenue - I agree that that's a problem. It's an unnecessary perverse incentive and yet another avenue for rent-seeking in an economy that's drowning in it.
Your claim, though, was that they did not have a safety benefit. Empirical observation, gathered through carefully designed studies, suggests that they do. Do you have statistics that contradict the CDC's findings, or that contradict similar studies that I could pull up from FHWA or NHI?
optifreebraun t1_jeag9yk wrote
I don’t have citations readily available because I’m not in speed camera PR industry. But I’ll get you a pile of opposing studies after work.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeagguc wrote
lol, okay. That answer strikes me as humorously evasive but I'm sure you'll be able to find something, and I genuinely look forward to it. Thanks for the discussion.
optifreebraun t1_jeags92 wrote
What’s your motivation for wanting speed cameras so badly?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeahel5 wrote
I don't "want them so badly." I would be fine with this policy not going into effect. I just think that if we're going to discuss the policy, we should discuss it using the actual facts.
Four people were killed in work zones last year. It would be nice if that number was zero. If cameras could help with that, then I'm open to it.
What is your motivation for defending your right to drive 15+ mph over the speed limit in work zones?
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je7rcbi wrote
I'd like them to be in permanent fixed locations. But this bill was a compromise to get them only in work zones.
And cops are insanely expensive, while camera's are relatively cheap. It seems insane to make the government hire cops to do this work when an automatic camera can do it more effectively. I'd rather our police be doing actual police work trying to solve crimes, not doing the work a camera can do.
And cops stopping people for speeding can lead to tragic consequences, for both the people stopped and rarely for the cops themselves. I'd much rather get a ticket from a camera than a fresh recruit trigger happy cop pulling me over.
dkdaniel t1_je7sqek wrote
The expense of cops is the point. People prefer cops over cameras because they know it's too expensive to enforce reliably with cops.
optifreebraun t1_je7zrkg wrote
But it doesn't do it more effectively.
What are we trying to accomplish here? Raise revenue for private companies - then yes, definitely more effective.
But actually reduce speeds and increase safety? You need visible deterrents - such as a police cruiser.
And who says they need to stop people? A police cruiser with its lights on in a construction site is a far better deterrent than hidden camera to slow people down - nothing sets off brake lights quicker than cruiser with its disco lights going.
Nice try, PR guy.
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je81krk wrote
Studies have consistently shown that speed camera enforcement reduces driver speed.
But I'm sure you'll deny any scientific evidence that you disagree with as propaganda.
You can continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some evil lizard person. Have fun on your flat earth.
optifreebraun t1_je82fpw wrote
Man, the PR folks are prepared tonight - you've got the studies to show this! I mean, other than PR folks, who else is ready with scientific evidence and studies? I think you've just proved my point.
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je82pqi wrote
Activists who want to reduce road fatalities.
People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer.
Those are the people who are likely to cite studies on these topics. I fall into the second category.
optifreebraun t1_je835li wrote
Activists funded by traffic camera companies = shill.
Can you share with us your research? Are you associated with a university for these studies? Any corporate funding for that research?
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je849tp wrote
I said that I know about this because I had a close friend die due to our dangerous roads. Learn to read.
This is a systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of speed cameras: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/full
optifreebraun t1_je84v59 wrote
Boy, you sure are condescending. I know how to read, but I just don't believe you.
As you fall into the self-professed category of "People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer," pray tell, what was *your research*?
Edit: Your research versus that random link you gave out as part of your PR shill presentation.
dkdaniel t1_je82vm9 wrote
He fenced his position by preemptively claiming anybody who disagrees must be getting paid, that there is no possible good faith reason to disagree. It's intellectual cowardice.
optifreebraun t1_je9fg0d wrote
Ad hominem attacks of cowardice - almost as if you’re a professional who’s livelihood depended on this.
And in this case I am correct - you are getting paid. Who else is this passionate about installing regressive taxation solutions that are effective only for raising money for private companies?
dkdaniel t1_je9q0ix wrote
Do you not realize that calling everyone a shill is an Ad Hominem?
optifreebraun t1_je9qncs wrote
I’m not calling everyone a shill - just the people that are shills. I seem to have caught at least a couple in this thread.
dkdaniel t1_je829b9 wrote
The speed cameras are going to be more visible than police cruisers with signs alerting you before you enter the work zone
optifreebraun t1_je82mau wrote
So the company that you work for will have speed cameras with big signs alerting us to the speed cameras? Can you show us a sample?
I still think the LED disco lights of a police cruiser is far more visible and serves as a better deterrent than any sign.
optifreebraun t1_je9fjz7 wrote
Awww, poor shill can’t answer this question because the shill knows those signs won’t exist.
Buzz off and tell your company we’re not interested.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments