It’s insane the lengths that some people will go to save a few seconds on their commute, while also endangering others.
I don’t understand why these people can’t see the cameras are there to protect everyone - including drivers.
Maybe because cameras can’t protect anyone. They gather evidence for incrimination, not prevention.
From 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17 to 39 per cent and fatalities by between 58 to 68 per cent within 500 metres of the cameras.
That’s a report on a single study in the UK. We cannot necessarily assume that the outcome will be the same or even similar in all jurisdictions and social driving norms. The US, for instance, doesn’t have speed cameras, but the use of red light cameras has no effect in the rate of accidents at best and an increase in the rate of accidents at worse and it’s not clear what impact the introduction of such cameras to the US would have. Meanwhile the UAE does have speed cameras, but they do nothing to limit the speed of the Emirate citizens and only the threat of harsh fines, punishment, or deportation keeps the immigrant and working population in line.
While this camera was in a location which already has cameras, the claim quoted was not that “UK cameras protect UK drivers,” but one of “Cameras [in general] protect everyone” which is simply not true. Cameras have only the mechanisms necessary to record and report, they have no mechanism by which they can divert, slow, or stop a car or pedestrian and no mechanism they can use to stop an accident.
The cameras in question are on the UK, and cameras change behaviour because they enforce rules, as the study shows.
Some places in the US definitely do have speed cameras.
deleted by creator
Speed cameras do prevent speeding, they are used to trap in some cases, but almost always they are sign posted, which causes people to slow down.
That sounds like the signs have a correlated impact more than the cameras having a causal relationship.
The signs work because people are scared of speeding cameras.
If you put up signs everywhere without backing them up with cameras people will obviously ignore them.
The cameras are doing the real work, the signs are just for people new to the area.
There’s not much point arguing with these people my guy. There’s no rational thinking.
How so? Isn’t knowing the consequence a form of prevention?
You’ll never get a real answer because the types of people that post these idiotic disingenuous complaints about speed cameras have nothing to say to the simple question:
Why not just drive within the speed limit?
I don’t know about other places, but at least in the US it’s mostly because the speed limit doesn’t match the scale of the road. A wider road = higher speed limit to most people’s subconscious. You have to actively watch your speed to not end up speeding, because we build neighborhood roads that are large enough to be marked 45, but it’s a neighborhood, so it’s a 25mph zone.
The number of drivers that don’t actively drive is a whole other issue.
Edit: This argument assumes that they aren’t an adrenaline junkie, or entitled asshole, and didn’t realize they were speeding.
Or maybe I was just out during the day and didn’t have a chance to respond until now?
I didn’t post a complaint about speed cameras and certainly not a disingenuous one at that. I was just pointing out an incorrect assumption made by an official quoted in the article.
I do think it’s kinda silly that your response to the fact that cameras don’t have a means to control traffic or stop accidents is to ask why I don’t drive the speed limit.
I do.
And cameras still can’t stop me from getting into an accident.
And cameras still can’t stop me from getting into an accident.
Are you stupid? The whole premise is that the risk of actual consequences will slow people down, which in turn reduced the risk of getting into an accident.
If traffic cameras worked to prevent traffic violations they wouldn’t be revenue streams. People would just rationally follow the traffic laws to avoid consequences. Yet, in the real world, we know it will only slow down the people who think about consequences.
If traffic cameras worked to prevent traffic violations they wouldn’t be revenue streams.
They can be both lol. Prevent traffic violations for the people that care about the consequences, and a revenue stream from people that don’t.
Yet, in the real world, we know it will only slow down the people who think about consequences.
Better than nothing.
They literally can’t be both. If the camera is a revenue stream then people are constantly getting tickets, which means nothing has been solved.
I don’t really care about motorists, but that doesn’t stop me from acknowledging these as a scam
Not really. Awareness of punishment does little to abate crime in general and while increasing the chances of getting caught (say by automatic cameras) does discourage crime in a meaningful way it does not prevent it.
Even so, the camera itself is not offering protection. It has no mechanism to control traffic or stop an accident.
I see this language far too often around cameras, but the fact remains they serve only to incriminate after the fact, not to prevent before the fact.
If you want protection, reduce lane sizes, make drives less straight, install speed tables, incentive alternate arterial routes, make sure alternate forms of transportation are effective and available. Hell, install the cameras even, but don’t be dissolutioned that they are what is actually doing anything.
Speed cameras do work though. Here they are often used in specific places where people are driving too fast, especially if near schools and other places where it’s extra dangerous.
For example close to where I live there is a steep hill with a road that goes straight down and after there is a completely straight road and then a really small bridge with a bump.
Some people like to speed down the hill and basically “jump” the bridge bump. Fortunately a speed camera was installed at the bridge and they warn about it well in advance.
While you could technically redesign the road, it would be very costly compared to a camera and that road is a very small road with low traffic and private farmland (or grazing land, I don’t remember) on both sides.
Here the cameras aren’t even activated all the time just enough to achieve their goal of reducing traffic.
These are all better options, but that’ll require closing the road for a while and more money to spend, which have been gambled on leaving the EU from my American understanding of modern British history. Speed cameras are much cheaper, will not require road closure, and there have been studies indicating a 22% effectiveness after installation.
That is a bad take.
TL;DR: If you do incriminating stuff, you should be incriminated.
There are rules that every driver has to adhere to. The rules are there for protection of the drivers and the people that rely on the drivers driving safely. But the thing is: without consequences, some people show bad behaviour, one being ignoring the rules which are made to keep people safe. In order to suppress such behaviour, fines and punishment are used.
I have been driving cars for around 10 years and have gotten a fine three times. The amount I paid for it in total was roughly 10 Euros per year, which is less than 1 Euro per month. And I could have avoided having to pay this by just being mindful and acting according to the rules, which I did not.
If people feel like they should drive 120 kmh in a 50 kmh zone or even worse, without any proper justification, they do not belong behind the wheel of a car.
People would be less upset about the cameras if a) we weren’t already the most surveilled western country already. B) the fine for minor speeding was minor. as you mentioned you paid 100 euros for 3 fines. In the uk you can be fined for doing 33 in a 30, and the fine will be 100 euros per time, plus points that makes your insurance go up as well. And c) there weren’t so god slam many of them. I live in Europe now, but went back to the uk to visit friends and family and honestly there have to be about 40-50 times many cameras in the uk than in Germany!
Plus they often feel like they’re placed to catch people who drift upto 35 on the downhill section of a road that looks like it should be national speed limit anyway.
If they didn’t feel like a way for them to make money people would accept them easier.
Personally I’m a rare sunday driver so they don’t really affect me but I absolutely see how people can be annoyed by them
Agreed. If they were actually there to stop speeding and not just cash in, then they would just put average cameras on every slip road and then nobody could speed on the motorway at all. Obviously this would be hell for someone like me but I couldn’t argue with it for safety really.
Just drive the speed limit and there’s no problem. Driving massive multiple ton killing machines is already a massive privilege, if you can’t adhere to simple rules of the road, you shouldnt be driving at all.
Self righteous much? You talk like it’s not possible to stray a bit over the speed limit and still be safe. Honestly imo, anyone timid enough to feel like 35mph in a 30 is genuine,seriously dangerous should not be allowed to drive. You should be confident and commanding of said multiple ton machine.
If that is your mindset, then just pretend every speed limit is 5mph lower than it is, so when you are going 5mph faster, you are still driving within the limit. It’s a matter of moving your own personal goalposts if you can’t follow a very simple limit. Not wanting to follow such a basic rule as stay within the speed limit tells me you shouldn’t be allowed to drive and if you cannot understand what a limit is, you should be retaking your test.
You are saying it should be fine to drive 5mph over the limit, okay so let’s say we make that legal. Now you are caught doing 37, that’s only 2mph over the 5mph extra we allow, so should you be punished? All you have effectively done is increase the speed limit by 5mph. The 30 on the sign, that’s all it is, a speed limit. It’s not saying “drive around this number”, it’s saying: do not drive above this number, that’s what a limit is. There’s already a 10% leniency on speed limits to account for things like instrumental errors and minor mishaps, but that doesn’t mean you should be knowingly driving 10% faster than the limit.
I am going to take my own advice and not engage with this any further as it’s a very simple subject of just following the rules of the road and arguing/encouraging otherwise is just illegal and dangerous advice. If you have a problem with a speed limit on a road, you should take that up with your local government and not drive over the limit.
I’m not saying they should abolish or raise speed limits at all. But I’m just sick of this sub randomly popping up on /all and everyone here freaking out that straying over the speed limit by a few mph is a heinous crime when realistically it makes little difference. Again, talking about 30-35 in a 30 not 40 or 50 or something. Makes me worried all these pussies are super jumpy and jittery behind the wheel instead of calm and collected, which imo would cause my accidents than people driving assertively and confidently.
deleted by creator
Speed cameras don’t discriminate on who they stop, and their enforcement doesn’t turn violent like it can do for human enforcement.
deleted by creator
does ticketing the owner of the car, via automation, really accurately cite the offender? How does the camera know it was you, without a shadow of a doubt? You’re ticketing or citing the owner of the vehicle without them being present and stopped by an officer. Red Light cameras are just as bad. There’s no guarantee that the person who is listed as the owner was the one to drive the vehicle and commit the offense.
In the UK, where this is, the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent a letter requiring they identify the driver at the time of the incident. Lying about it is a serious offence if caught. So, yes, it’s as accurate as can be.
Do you want to have to defend yourself halfway across town or the state/territory/region you live in when someone steals or borrows your car without permission and speeds or runs a red light?
You’d have reported your car stolen to the police. Again, lying about this is a serious offence.
deleted by creator
Ok, what better infrastructure do you recommend? Consider a 60mph straight road that passes through a village with shops and schools on both sides of the road, currently a 30mph speed limit through that section.
deleted by creator
Speed cameras aren’t hidden in the UK. They are always preceded by warning signs and the cameras themselves are in big yellow boxes that are completely obvious. You’d have to be blind to miss one.
This isn’t privacy issue. It’s just an issue for bad drivers.
Agreed. They are also only activated when the radar has actually detected something.
It’s one of the few cases where I say “Why do you care if you don’t do it?” because the only purpose in this case is to catch people doing illegal things and in theory the license plate of drivers who don’t go over the speed limit shouldn’t be photographed.
They’ve also shown that they work in school zones where the limit is lower than anywhere else, so in my opinion they should at least be installed in all school zones.
Lol no the only purpose is increasing revenue via fines.
If it was a real safety deterrent there would be some immediate feedback like a text message, assuming you have your phone number in your driver’s licence registration. Instead oblivious drivers will be going too fast in that stretch of road for weeks before getting tickets in the mail, and then they’ll get a bunch of tickets.
The point is to hit them with the fine 5+ times not once.
Lol no the only purpose is increasing revenue via fines.
In the UK the police do not receive the income from the fines. The purpose is to increase safety on the roads.
deleted by creator
Right 3 months
Better than any source proving they don’t work that you brought
It’s not they don’t work to decrease speeding… They do. It’s that if the point was immediate deterrence there would be some feedback to the driver they just got a ticket, like the kind of immediate feedback you get when you are pulled over by a real cop.
Why? We don’t even need to bother, they’re proven to work pretty much as soon as they’re installed!
Okay, so you know how it sucks to have people ignore rules and ignore you and your safety, you know how it feels to be treated like dirt by other people… and they probably do it because they do not fear any consequences for themselves and think they are in the right.
So I need to ask you: how will they ever be taught that you have rights that need to be upheld?
The same question has been asked regarding speed limits and speed cameras are one of the answers. And a pretty good one too. The article says:
The cameras in Perranarworthal were installed in March 2023 after campaigning from residents. Where the speed camera is, or was, it’s used by parents taking their children to two primary schools … it’s one of the busiest crossings in Truro and there’s been a number of quite bad accidents. For hundreds of people in that area, the speed cameras actually had a really positive effect on their quality of life. Parents feel safe letting their kids walk to school now.
What has happened here is just completely antisocial behaviour that is ruled by selfish thinking. This is not kicking big brother’s ass. This is kicking asses of people who can not defend themselves against idiots in better ways.
deleted by creator
Yeah this is one of those needs other methods of speed control. Cameras and tickets can only do much.
Yeah, fuck mass surveillance. Anyone downing cameras is ok in my book
Governments are clamping down on protests against climate change: * silence *
Some idiots cut down speed cameras the people living there specifically asked for: YEAH! Fuck the police!!!1! Rage against the machine!!!1! Fuck mass surveillance!!!1!
Priorities , I guess.
Its easy to cut down a camera… How the fuck would you even go about trying to fix the first one a petition or someshit? Booooring fires up chainsaw
Not that I would ever seriously suggest this, but we could start crowdfunding the sabotage of polluting factories. Payout goes to whichever anonymous person correctly “guesses” the downtime. Just joking of course.
Man I would love to see that happen in a video game
That’s just going to put up the cost of living and result in more waste as less efficient replacements are put in place labelled temporary measures, also money will get spent on security rather than modernization of facilities - new builds got example using security focused design rather than energy efficient design.
It would be better to crowdfund the development of open source tools and products which are more ecologically sustainable while also being cheaper and better than the current option then collectively support and popularize it to put the prior company out of business.
Localized production of globally developed community products is how we actually beat capitalism, only problem is currently everyone wants to be rambo and no one wants to work as a cog in a citizen science r&d project, it’s not as sexy.
If we’re assuming that market forces can put these companies out of business, then additional spending on security would hasten that. It would be even cheaper for them to just reduce pollution in the first place - their net gains from excessive pollution are less than our net losses from it, making this an externality problem. So with defense on the table, the equilibrium becomes for them to pollute less.
Increased costs to polluters should trickle down to our cost of living about as much as decreased costs have - so, it won’t at all. The polluters are getting the whole surplus here.
Fossil fuels have tremendous engineering advantages if one ignores pollution. It’s not a given that we can invent an ecologically sustainable alternative that will outperform fossil fuels if there are low internal costs to polluting.
Edit: oh and I’m totally joking and haven’t given this a lot of thought or anything
Rocks are everywhere.
Power poles seem pretty vulnerable.
You’re operating on the notion that the speed limit is fairly implemented.
Could be that it is too low for the road or hasn’t been adapted to suit safer and more capable modern cars.
Speed traps are a revenue collection project, not a way to improve safety. If it was you’d be stopped from speeding, not charged for it.
Nope. The site has to have a history of accidents. Also, cars might have improved but humans haven’t.
However, there is a sneaky trick you can do to avoid getting fined - don’t speed. I’ve tried it and it works.
What constitutes a history and number of accidents?
What about the speed limit being too low and unreasonable resulting in breaches. For a similar argument look at drug use, marijuana is illegal most places but in most of those it’s use is accepted because the law is unreasonable.
It was instituted by the requests of people who live there. The speed limit is 35mph, which is very reasonable.
Lol when I read the title I was happy for them
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A speed camera that was only recently replaced was among two cut down overnight in Cornwall.In the latest attack on the county’s speed traps, police said the speed camera at Perranarworthal had been cut down for a second time after it was first vandalised in October 2023 and replaced in November.Another camera was also attacked on Tregolls Road in Truro at about 03:10 GMT, officers said.Devon and Cornwall Police said those responsible had left the scene before officers arrived.
The cameras in Perranarworthal were installed in March 2023 after campaigning from residents.Cornwall Councillor Peter Williams, who represents Perranarworthal, said: "It is absolutely horrendous why people go and do these things under the noses of where people live.
The speed camera on Tregolls Road in Truro had more than 17,000 activations the year after it was installed, according to police.Loic Rich, Truro City Councillor for the Tregolls Ward, said parents had complained about the dangers of speeding in the area.He said: "Where the speed camera is, or was, it’s used by parents taking their children to two primary schools … it’s one of the busiest crossings in Truro and there’s been a number of quite bad accidents.
"For hundreds of people in that area, the speed cameras actually had a really positive effect on their quality of life.
"Whoever’s cut down the speed camera, and I don’t know why they’ve done that or what they’re trying to achieve, I think it’s a real shame.
Cornwall Council and Devon and Cornwall Police, both members of the Vision Zero Road Safety partnership, said in a joint statement that they were disappointed to see “yet more mindless vandalism targeted at safety cameras”.They said: “These devices were installed at the wishes of the community to improve road safety in areas, which had previously experienced high speeds and several serious and fatal collisions.“While these cameras are inactive, these communities no longer have the protection they were once afforded, which is really saddening.“The cost of replacing these cameras is also a burden which has to be footed by the taxpayer, making these attacks all the more bizarre.”
The original article contains 434 words, the summary contains 350 words. Saved 19%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Meh, fuck the cameras. They don’t stop the actual dangerous drivers and just end up tagging folks going 8mph (13kph) over. Fix the street and infrastructure.
From 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17 to 39 per cent and fatalities by between 58 to 68 per cent within 500 metres of the cameras.
Fixing the infra would be great but local councils often just don’t have the money to.
Sounds like they need to increase road taxes then which will have the helpful knock-on affect of reducing the number of cars on the road.
Road tax doesn’t exist in the UK, and if it did it wouldn’t be something the local council has any control over. We need to get rids of the tories in the central government and start funding local councils better.
deleted by creator
So why do folks go 13 kph over? And why is that okay?
Because god forbid we have a small variance for error and using common sense. God forbid I go faster when traffic is minimal or use any judgement while driving. Fuck me for thinking a ticket for going 5 over isn’t worth a beating.
They should put up a new one for each one vandalised
They need a vandalism camera on the speeding cameras!
Unlimited funding for speed camera’s and kickbacks, zero funding for road redesign? That sounds really safe!
Damn right op, going at 30 rather than 20 is a terrible thing to do. Driving at 20 is the moral choice. Yes it means your commute will be 50% longer than if you’d driven at 30, but that’s a sacrifice we should all be willing to make, said no-one with a 2 hour daily commute.
You use twice as mich fuel to accelerate from 0 to 30mph as 0 to 20mph, and if you hit a pedestrian at 30mph there’s a 20% chance it will be fatal Vs 2.5% at 20mph.
You are never going to average the speed limits throughout your drive, unless you’re speeding. In an urban environment, where 20mph speed limits are used, you will lose seconds on your journey.
But anyway, where is this coming from? The post is about speed cameras, not what the limits are set to. Why are you even bringing that up?
Quite simple really, every speed camera you put up usually ties in with a lowered speed limit.
Except it won’t be 50% longer, not unless you’re going cross country. If you’re driving anything less than 100+ MI =,10 mph isn’t going to make pretty much any difference in your commute time at all. Not to mention your just going to hit a light and someone traveling the actual speed limit will then pull up right along side you while you wait
30mph - 30 miles in 1 hour 20mph - 20 miles in 1 hour, or 30 miles in 1.5 hours
However, you do have a point about the hell that is stop-start traffic.
That’s the point yes, looking purely at math assuming a completely 100% clear no stop Journey it would be faster. But that’s not how life works, you stop at lights, you slow down at ramps, you stop at intersections. All of these things together make it so that unless you’re traveling like a hundred miles or more it’s just not going to make a difference. I very regularly make trips between Seattle and Portland, the difference between trying to cruise control 65 the whole way and trying to cruise control 75 the whole way isn’t very large. Last time I remember trying I think it was about a 20 minute difference in a trip that is almost 3 hours Real world slowdowns end up equalizing much of the journey
As someone who commuted an hour each way for a year, I both calculated to the best of my ability and then tested. I could shave 5 minutes off by going 65 instead of 55 on the 55 mph highways, and fuel consumption was significantly higher. Going 30 in a 20 zone will do jack shit for someone commuting on surface streets
I’m a car driver and enthusiast and I’ll be the first one to ask… Why the fuck can my car reach 250kph if the highest speed limit in my country is 110kph???
Edit: If you think I’m complaining that I can’t go faster then you understood the message wrong
Driving fast in the right circumstances is a blast, no one is denying that. E.g., doing a track day, or even road racing on a closed course. But it’s not the same as driving in public day-to-day. Here in the US southwest, in order to drive a road race in the 150 mph/250 kph class, you need a 5 point harness, fire suppression system, helmet and HANS device.
You simply don’t need to go that fast on a daily basis. It’s not safe for you, without all the above precautions, and it’s not safe for others around you.
Auto manufacturers use the top speeds/acceleration/torque stats for marketing. Drivers imagine they will have fun going that fast (see above, they can!), they perceive value in having “better stats”, so the market rewards manufacturers to keep selling daily-driver cars that have unrealistic top speeds. Combine that with the fact that most people can’t afford to have a separate “fun” car, or access to safe locations for motor sports, and we end up seeing people trying to have the fun they imagined on our shared public roadways, which is downright dangerous for everyone.
Get your kicks on the track. Your car’s top speed does not belong on public roads.
Exactly! I think discussions have started to have speed limiters on new cars sold in Canada and it’s perfectly logical. Why let manufacturers sell cars that can reach speeds that will make people face criminal charges if they get caught? It’s ridiculous enough that we’re switching to electric cars with 0-100kph under 7 seconds and no one bats an eye… The next few decades will be interesting, imagine all the new drivers accidently launching from stop signs in a fairly basic car that does 0-100 in 6 seconds…
It’s ridiculous enough that we’re switching to electric cars with 0-100kph under 7 seconds and no one bats an eye…
This is a good point.
Nobody seems to care at all about acceleration even though it can be just as dangerous as sheer speed in the hands of most drivers.
Yep, there’s a reason why most motorcyclists will tell newbies to start with 650cc or less, uncontrolled acceleration can kill too!
I think the best thing I ever did was learn on a 250cc. It’s way harder to wreck your day or get yourself killed when you inevitably grab a bit too much throttle as a complete newbie. I would even encourage people to learn on a 125cc or even 50cc. The basics are the basics and you can pick those up on a bike with less than 10hp just as easily if not more easily than a bike with 100+hp.
It would be amazing to see government mandated limiters in cars, in general, and not just for learners.
I know that a lot of people don’t agree with that but the public has proved they are incapable of driving within reasonable limits. No one needs a car that can go the speeds that cars are capable of going. It’s totally possible to setup a system that enforces the limit only on public roads so that people could still take their cars to the track. We very much have the technology.
It blows my mind that the general public is completely accepting of things like smartphone OSes that can spy on their every move and log their every detail yet if you mention limiters on cars all of the sudden they become staunch advocates for personal freedoms. The hypocrisy blows my mind.
Maybe… because it is dangerous to drive that fast when other people are around? Why don’t you just buy a car that can only go as fast as the highest speed limit?
Huh? What part of my message made you think I drive over the speed limit? I’m clearly saying that it’s ridiculous that cars are sold without speed limiters!
deleted by creator
I guess reading comprehension isn’t people’s forte.
The problem here is not a lack of reading comprehension but rather a lack of you explaining yourself. You see, I could not really see the motivation behind your post because it was so ambiguous. So I think it is not really fair to blame anyone reading your text for not correctly interpreting it they way you wanted it.
Because a person from the USA invented the car, why else?
Eh… In Germany, not the USA 🤔
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean, it totally solves the problems of the selfish people that drive like they are the only important thing in the world…
The best thing to do would be to redesign the road, but the local council probably doesn’t have money to do that. But drivers should be able to follow a speed limit, it’s pretty basic.
The problem is not the speed limit or the camera, the problem are the drivers and their mindsets.
increase the speed limit
🤡💀
I mean it’s probably a low speed limit because it needs to be maybe 4h a day… Same with motorway speed limits being lower because it “may be hazardous”
We need to take smart motorways and apply the concept to everything and also de-lobotomise them: if it’s rush hour, lower the speed limit to 40-50 on motorways and 20 in built up areas to reduce emissions and make people leave a stopping distance… Same if it’s icy or foggy, but equally if it’s 6am on a Sunday in summer (ie the sun has been up for 2-3h) and completely clear skies then fuck it, you can probably do 150 on a motorway and still be safer than driving at 50 at rush hour so long as you’re not using your phone or whatever (also that’s probably before the trains start so you’re forced to travel by car anyway, so there’s no motive to reduce speed limits to get people onto public transit)…
