What’s your motivation for wanting speed cameras so badly?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

What’s the revenue share for your … I mean … the speed camera company on these tickets?

Do you plan for cameras to be everywhere all at once?

We're screaming slippery slope at a terrible idea.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And making it a lesser civil fine frequently makes it nearly impossible to fight. Fighting your average traffic citation written by police officer - in most jurisdictions - at least carries the fiction that you can fight it in court. You may not get that day in court with a civil violation.

Last part - these traffic cameras are incredibly regressive taxation. The wealthy hedge fund manager from Greenwich gets hit with the same fine as the single mother of two barely making ends meet that just missed a speed sign. Whether you like law enforcement or not, they are still human beings that likely wouldn't hesitate to write up the Greenwich guy or give a break to the single mom - you don't have that with a camera that sends a ticket to everyone.

I'd hear stories from Asian countries where wealthy conglomerate owners that liked cars wouldn't give two shits about the cameras and would speed everywhere because, well, when you can pay the fine, who cares?

Yeah - I'd rather properly deter speeders and reckless drivers by having a solid law enforcement presence that does actually slow people down. Not a "gotcha" camera that sends fines in the mail days or weeks later that does almost nothing to slow these speeders down at the moment of their violation.

Or do you just want to save the money that we'd spend on overtime / law enforcement to do the job right?

Yup, anything that raises revenue will just keep creeping up, particularly when you have private companies profiting from the cameras and lobbying our government officials.

Just look at how the first federal income tax highest bracket was 5%. Or how the Alternative Minimum Tax was intended to hit the 155 highest income families but then by 2017 was hitting 5.2 million households.

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.

"I'm a shill that vigorously defends traffic cams but I'll gaslight anyone that calls me a shill."

Just the speed camera PR folks that are all over reddit. The average citizen agrees with you.

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 ...

Hehe, Massholes.

Merritt Parkway, same thing.

Well, yeah I agree - my point is to people who are upset that they are already doing 80 and a car doing 90 comes up behind them. Just move over - you can avoid an accident and (if the traffic violation bothers you) law enforcement nominally should deal with this issue instead of you.

As an aside, the lane discipline in most of Europe is amazing - and on the autobahn, I've had the pleasure of cruising at 120 mph (200 kph) in the right lane and being overtaken like I was standing still by an Audi or Mercedes station wagon (it was so fast I couldn't tell which!) on the left.

The way I see it, if some guy is doing 90 mph and is on my tail, I'll move over to avoid being entangled in an accident. The cops can deal with his flagrant violation of the law.

I think it's just simple politeness and manners - if someone needs or wants to go faster than me and I am in the left lane, I will move over for them unless I am also actively overtaking cars on my right.

I see it the way I see aisles at a supermarket - sure I have the "right" to block an aisle with me and my cart, but if I see someone wanting to get by, I'll move over to the side for them.