• MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Modern petrol cars contain lots of computers too.

    Automatic enforcement, with the right to override it recorded in the black box to be used as evidence in crash cases, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But inevitably there will be bugs, just as there are in self-driving cars (especially the often dangerous “semi-autonomous” vehicles).

    However there is a cheaper solution: Fixed, widespread speed cameras. Which right now are effectively banned in the UK, because the treasury confiscates the fines (local government pays the running costs, and therefore can’t afford to run any).

    While I understand there are usability issues, and design can help with that, if you’re not able to drive your ton of metal safely and legally you shouldn’t be driving it. If people expected to get caught, they’d drive slower.

    The bottom line is speed limits are the law. And lower speed limits reduce the number of serious injuries dramatically and help to push people onto public transport. Although with old cars they increase emissions slightly; with modern hybrids they reduce them.

    • gabriel@col.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @matthewtoad43 @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Oh, but you don’t have to enforce the fine every single time. Speed should be monitored for every car, all the time, and then apply statistical analysis to punish.

      Therefore if you were wrongfully accused, you’ll be ok, as you follow the law most of the time. But those who play fast n furious at every opportunity would be certainly caught as the murderous type that they are.

          • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            @gabriel @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Because somehow drivers have decided that driving is a right in the same sense that freedom of association is a right.

            That any restriction on their ability to drive, that any monitoring of their driving in a public place, is somehow against civil liberties.

            That the law should be reinterpreted to suit them. That “causing death by dangerous driving” is somehow less serious than manslaughter (aka murder 3).

            Freedom to drive has never been a constitutional or human right. Certainly not in my country nor in the USA.

            Cars need to be regulated for the same reason that guns need to be regulated.

      • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 In the UK, local councils pay for fixed speed cameras.

        Central government confiscates the fines.

        When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.

        The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.

        But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.

          • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            @immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.

            They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.

            As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.

            More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.

            I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?

              • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                @PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.

                They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.

                But they have to pay for the costs of running them.

                And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.

                Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.

                • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those? Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?

                  • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @PowerCrazy You’re saying we shouldn’t have buses, bicycles and ambulances either?

                    I believe we can reduce the number of cars by maybe 70 to 80% over the next few decades.

                    But there’s a lot to do to get to that point. We can’t flip a switch overnight to eliminate *all* cars without dealing with accessibility, housing, prejudice, new rail lines, a whole bunch of problems, some of which will take some time to fix.

                    On the other hand we *can* make significant progress by investing in public transport, especially buses, combined with some mildly coercive measures such as LTNs, reduced parking, lower speed limits, bike lanes, bus lanes, etc.