1048
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by MacNCheezus@lemmy.today to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

EDIT: since apparently a bunch of people woke up with the wrong foot this morning or forgot to check the group they’re in:

This is a joke. Do not steal or vandalize speed enforcement cameras (or anything else for that matter). That’s against the law and you will likely get arrested.

If you’re addicted to crack or any other drugs, please seek professional help.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Gotta enforce speed limits.

And these things don't shoot you if you look at them wrong – or are black.

Edit: "No, you can't just stick a camera worth a couple of thousand [local currency] next to the road, that takes photographic evidence of infractions. You gotta rip out the entire surface, redesign the sides and introduce a few sharp curves by demolishing a few blocks of buildings here and there. In the mean time speed is only enforced by violent cops who feel like you were speeding.

It's the only logical way."

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 23 points 9 months ago

And they fucking work!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/annoying-thing-speed-cameras-ottawa-they-work-1.6786951

https://driving.ca/column/lorraine/speed-cameras-work

I can't believe that people don't want to see them installed in every school zones at least, if there's one place where you don't want people speeding it's there!

"It's a road design issue!" Yeah? What's cheaper and can be done quicker, changing the road design or installing speed cameras?

[-] krellor@kbin.social 16 points 9 months ago

Where I live they are mostly used in school zones and residential areas, and they only trigger when going 12+ miles over the limit. Seems pretty reasonable.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

12 mph over in a school zone is proportionally a fucking lot!

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 9 months ago

Yeah people not respecting speed zones around schools is a real problem. I can't believe how people drive, and I've always got some Dodge Ram or Ford F150 riding my ass because I'm driving the proper speed.

Even if there was no posted speed limit, there are children everywhere and children are unpredictable.

[-] Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Rule of thumb: if you feel like you need a huge trophy truck to feel protected on the roads, chances are you drive like an asshole.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I mean, I agree people hating speed cameras is nonsense, just drive the speed limit! However, traffic calming is legit and makes the road a much safer place for pedestrians, and usually it's by narrowing the road, not widening it.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They also can't testify in court, depriving accused speeders of their constitutional right to due process.

But back to your first claim: "gotta enforce speed limits:" No, we do not. Speeding is a symptom of a street that was designed wrong to begin with. The correct solution is to fix the design, not install a speed camera as some sort of big brother band-aid.

Edit: why do y'all apparently hate the idea of improving street design? As a former traffic engineer, I'm telling you that that's the only way to truly fix the problem of speeding. I don't get why that's controversial.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 20 points 9 months ago

Sorry, but that is a gross misinterpretation. Drivers are not victims of an intrinsic speed devil that they cannot escape. They still choose to violate the speed limit in most cases.

What was done in these countries is to acknowledge, that physical design is more effective as enforcement, than the cop with a speed-meter.

Still the explicit intent is to enforce speed-limits, knowing that people would violate them if they could, but they can't because they would wreck their car. Still those people choose to violate and are responsible for their actions.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I gotta be honest; I don't understand what point you're trying to make. First you tell me I'm wrong that it's essential to fix the design of the street to facilitate the correct speed, then you agree with me that "physical design is more effective as enforcement," then you say that the risk of people wrecking their car effectively deters them from speeding, then you say they choose to speed anyway.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You say that speed limits shouldnt be enforced as they would be a "symptom" of poor road design. This abolishes the speeding drivers from their own responsibility for violating the traffic rules.

You misinterpret the design choices shown in the video as the opposite of "bad road design", therefore "good road design", which implies a generality. However these design choices are made solely and explicitly to enforce speed limits. They have disadvantages in other ways e.g. if you make spots where only one car can pass at a time, it makes traffic less efficient. These disadvantages wouldn't be needed if people would uphold the traffic rules by themselves.

Good design or bad design, many people will speed if they can get away with it. With a proper enforcement through speed cameras, and proper penalties for speeding, e.g. losing your licences for repeated offenses or having your vehicle impounded, could equally serve for enforcement. They are just more expensive, so making design choices is prefered by some countries.

But still people who speed chose to speed. They chose to violate the traffic rules and they chose to endanger other people and themselves. So speeding is never a "symptom" of road design. It is always a "symptom" of selfish assholes that should not be given the right to operate dangerous vehicles.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

However these design choices are made solely and explicitly to enforce speed limits.

No, they're designed to discourage people from exceeding the design speed, which is different.

But still people who speed chose to speed. They chose to violate the traffic rules and they chose to endanger other people and themselves. So speeding is never a “symptom” of road design. It is always a “symptom” of selfish assholes that should not be given the right to operate dangerous vehicles.

Jeez, it's not as if the vast majority of speeders are mustache-twirling villains doing it for the evulz who are incorrigible short of being punished by the law! They just think it's safe to be driving that speed because the overly-generous street design misleads them.

Look, here's the bottom line: the whole concept of a "speed limit" only exists in the first place because of a mismatch between the design speed and the speed people want to drive, which makes it unsafe. If you fix the geometry of the street to eliminate the mismatch such that the speed people want to drive at is safe, you don't need the limit anymore and can just fall back on "reasonable and prudent."

Y'all are acting like we need speed limits for their own sake, just to have something to enforce.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

overly-generous street design misleads them

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

Sorry but it's a black and white thing in this case, r either you're under the speed limit and not breaking the law or you're over the speed limit and breaking the law.

Also, tons of people object to speed camera tickets and win, the only difference is that there's no officer there when the event happened to tell them "Say that to the judge if you're not happy.", the end result is the same.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Bullshit. You are allowed to cross examine your accuser which you can't do for a camera. It is not the same. Random tech should not be judging humans for crimes.

[-] Voyajer@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

We also need to keep in mind the mechanism it is using to detect speed. If it uses radar it will need regular calibration. Handheld units for example are supposed to be spot checked before and after each shift with tuning forks and sent back to the manufacturer to be recalibrated every 6 months or so.

Lidar and optical flow most likely have different requirements, but I am not as familiar with them.

[-] PopMyCop@iusearchlinux.fyi 2 points 9 months ago

Lidar is supposed to be checked like radar. You have a standardized distance and you check that the machine is exactly matching.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sorry but it’s a black and white thing in this case, r either you’re under the speed limit and not breaking the law or you’re over the speed limit and breaking the law.

This isn't actually true. It's entirely possible to be breaking the law while driving under the speed limit: "driving too fast for conditions" is very much a thing.

But that's beside my point, which really was just that changing the design of the street to make people not want to speed in the first place is way more effective (and frankly, way less totalitarian) than punishing them after-the-fact for doing so.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"Driving too fast for conditions" won't be enforced by cameras, will still exist if the road is modified and is 100% subjective which is a problem speed cameras don't have so you should be happy about that.

It might be more effective, it's still not possible to change all roads as quickly as speed cameras can be deployed.

It's also a very stupid argument, that's like saying "If that person didn't want me to steal from them they shouldn't have left their car unlocked." The rule is there, it's your responsibility to respect it no matter what the road looks like. Both things need to be used in conjunction, roads need to be adapted to their limit but you need something to enforce the limits too.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

street that was designed wrong

Not Just Bikes? *checks link* yep, Not Just Bikes.

Yeah, speeding is a symptom of poor infrastructure design. It means one of a few possibilities:

  • You don't care and get speeding tickets
  • You do care and piss off everyone else on the road
[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

You do care and piss off everyone else on the road

Or worse, incite a bunch of extra passing maneuvers, making the road less safe.

[-] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Isn't that part of "you piss off everyone else on the road?"

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No. Although they often go hand-in-hand, it is possible to either piss people off without them doing anything in response or to incite people to feel the need to pass you without them getting mad about it.

[-] krellor@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

I'm sure it varies by area.

Where I live they install speed cameras in residential areas, school zones, and bus routes. They also only trigger when you are going 12 or more over the limit, and the highest speed limit I've seen with one these was 45mph, 35mph during school times. They also have an officer review and sign the citation, it is a flat fee, and no points. If needed, the officer who reviews will testify in court.

If someone is going 12+ over on school zones, school bus routes, and residential neighborhoods, then they deserve their fine.

[-] Rootiest@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I'm sure it varies by area.

They are illegal in my state

[-] ViscloReader@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I don't find improving road safety through intelligent engineering controversial, I think blaming the street design instead of the idiot deciding to speed through it is controversial. In the end it is the driver who accelerated, not the road engineer.

In fact I actually like how much attention has been brought over the past years to road design. I've always been scared of cars.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 9 months ago

I'm a big fan of NJB (shout out to !notjustbikes@feddit.nl), but I'm not going to argue against speed cameras. That's ridiculous. Yes, if I have to choose one or the other I'll take the better road design. But even with good road design, some people will choose to be dicks because they can, or they see it as a challenge or some shit. And speed cameras can be implemented right now, whereas better road design waits (even in the Netherlands!) until that street is next due for repaving.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

why do y'all apparently hate the idea of improving street design? As a former traffic engineer,

I think people are intuitively understanding that it's not really a possibility in a country as large as America. There are only 139,000 km of public roads in the Netherlands, compared to 6,743,151 km of roads in America. We also have different types of traffic compared to the Netherlands, more large vehicles and people without access to public transportation for daily commutes. Compounding all this with the fact that the federal government has no control of how most of these roads are built....... It's understandable why people don't see this as realistic option.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I think people are intuitively understanding that it’s not really a possibility in a country as large as America.

Their cynical intuition is wrong, though, and the "large country" argument in particular falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. So what if we have more roads? We have commensurately more traffic engineers, too! There is no excuse not to design properly.

Anyway, NJB has an entire video debunking that, so I'm just going to cite it instead of wasting my time arguing the point myself.

We also have different types of traffic compared to the Netherlands, more large vehicles and people without access to public transportation for daily commutes.

Vehicle size is irrelevant. Lack of access to public transportation is indeed a problem; however, in general "we shouldn't fix problem A because we also have problem B" is not a valid argument. It just means you should fix problems A and B.

Compounding all this with the fact that the federal government has no control of how most of these roads are built…

Sigh... look, you're not wrong to argue that that's a popular perception; however, that's much more a consequence of the shitty state of civics education than it is an accurate description of reality. There's a bunch of different ways the Federal government exerts control, including things like taxation and funding (including for state- and local-maintained roads in a lot of cases, not just U.S. Highways) and collaboration between the FHWA (government) and AASHTO (industry) on design standards. It's more complicated than just a unitary central government dictating things, but rest assured, roads are designed in a relatively standardized way nationwide.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Their cynical intuition is wrong, though, and the "large country" argument in particular falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. So what if we have more roads? We have commensurately more traffic engineers, too! There is no excuse not to design properly.

I think we're having a problem determining the difference of what is possible and what should be possible. Your argument is ignoring the most important aspect of any public project. There isn't enough political will in this country to pass universal healthcare, something that would end up saving the country billions of dollars. In what world do you think American politicians are going to replace 4 million miles of working roads?

Anyway, NJB has an entire video debunking that, so I'm just going to cite it instead of wasting my time arguing the point myself.

I don't have the time ATM to watch this, I'll give it a try after work. However, I doubt they're going to be able to explain how they would get through the gridlock of our current government.

Vehicle size is irrelevant. Lack of access to public transportation is indeed a problem; however, in general "we shouldn't fix problem A because we also have problem B" is not a valid argument. It just means you should fix problems A and B.

Traffic congestion won't improve unless we improve public transportation. It doesn't matter how well you build the roads, unless there is an alternative to driving there will be too many people on the roads. My argument is if we have to solve problem B before we work on problem A, there is no real reason to address problem A.

look, you're not wrong to argue that that's a popular perception; however, that's much more a consequence of the shitty state of civics education than it is an accurate description of reality.

I think we're just just getting into sematics now. Yes there is somewhat of a standardization of roads, but that does not mean they have the power to unilaterally create a new standard in which they could enforce with the power of the purse.

Your argument is ignoring the magnitude of funding and state and federal cooperation that would be required to revamp the entire transportation network of a huge country. Even if you could get a bill passed through our current Congress, how much money would it take, how much time?

Do I think we should be designing walkable cities with ample public transportation, of course. Do I think any politician in America would actually care about that......? No.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

NJB has an entire video debunking that

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

NJB has an entire video debunking that

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Ah yes, "tHe UsA iS tOo BiG, wE cAnT sOlVe ThIs"

Yes you can fix this. The Dutch bicycle culture was started by municipal votes, where resolutions passed municipal governments with margins of single votes. If American politicians can pull their heads out of their asses and even only pass a resolution that:

  • Disseminates empirical research on road safety to all traffic engineers,
  • Prioritises safety for all users on roads and streets, with priority given to those without armour (i.e. a car), and maybe
  • Penalised engineers and politicians who choose to fail to design for safety

Then in the next thirty odd years, I think that the worst offenders can be rebuilt.

Do note that few things are as good at destroying themselves in regular, correct use as car infrastructure.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

If American politicians can pull their heads out of their asses and even only pass a resolution that:

This is my entire point...... It is unrealistic to believe that American politicians would do something for the good of the people. Especially when a large portion of Americans themselves rarely vote for their own self interest.

What would be the cost of redesigning and paving 4.19 million miles of road? Well let's do some real conservative napkin math. Let's choose the cheapest type of road, a rural minor arterial on flat ground. The reconstruction for this single lane would be 915,000 per mile, per lane. Assuming every road is just rural and two lanes the cost would be around 7.7 trillion dollars. Roughly a third of America's GDP.

That's the absolute minimum according to The most recent estimate for road reconstruction and while using the least expensive options available.

No politician is ever going to ask for 7.7 trillion dollars for infrastructure.

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

yeah see that's what I was talking about. you don't have to ask for 7.7 trillion dollars all at once, because we already spend a pretty ludicrous amount on road maintenance already. you just redesign the road the next time the maintenance schedule comes around, which works out to be like. what you were already gonna spend, + the cost of paint you were already gonna use, + maybe some bollards, - the projected amount you would save by making it so people can take more trips by bikes and walking. which decreases car usage, which decreases the frequency with which you have to do road maintenance and upkeep, because cars weigh a lot and wear down the roads way more than any other use of roads.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

yeah see that's what I was talking about. you don't have to ask for 7.7 trillion dollars all at once, because we already spend a pretty ludicrous amount on road maintenance already.

That's how every congressional budget is configured....... When they run scare tactics about universal healthcare going to cost trillions of dollars they don't mean all at once. When they pass something like an infrastructure bill they also have to explain how to pay for it and for how long.

you just redesign the road the next time the maintenance schedule comes around, which works out to be like. what you were already gonna spend, + the cost of paint you were already gonna use, + maybe some bollards, -

That's not how roads work..... The maintenance schedule is just fixing the top layer of paving. The bulk of the cost is in reshaping land and pouring the concrete foundations. If all you're doing is repaving the top layer it's not going to make any significant changes.

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

If all you’re doing is repaving the top layer it’s not going to make any significant changes.

more than you might think, again, even just with paint. a road diet can take a four lane road down to two lanes, and can add bike lanes and a turn lane, which cuts down on traffic accidents from lane changes, and potentially road speed. you can do a lot with on street parking, and then you can increase the width of bike lanes and increase their traffic separation even more, if you really want to encroach on the space cars are taking up. you can focus larger projects on given intersections, you can increase the size of curbs, once foot traffic increases, and it becomes easier to justify. I don't have solutions for like a six lane fully stroaded out shithole, outside of maybe trying to make it into a boulevard with planters and trees and pedestrian islands in the middle, because the crossings are too long. you can also do that shit they did with covid and just cut off a street for a weekend and then see whatever the increase in foot traffic ends up being, and then present the results of that trial, which is a good way to get the idea across and raise support in the community.

if none of those, combined with changing zoning laws to allow more mixed-use development, and more built up development, if none of that strikes you as "significant changes", then I don't really know what to tell you. it takes a while to accomplish, and at this point in most places in america is a multi-generation effort, but I dunno, that's just kind of the way it is. if you're really cynical, I guess there's caltrops? like I dunno, what's your alternative here?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

designed wrong

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
1048 points (94.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26718 readers
1060 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS