City Life

2119 readers

1 users here now

All topics urbanism and city related, from urban planning to public transit to municipal interest stuff. Both automobile and FuckCars inclusive.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Is this the year California OKs speed cameras? (www.latimes.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

hoping this catches on, pretty please CA...

i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hasn’t it been shown the cameras actually increase accident rates?

Most studies find that cameras decrease accident rates: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract

Theoretically, it might cause drivers to drive more unpredictably, but I'd expect that those are typically rear-end colissions as drivers slam their brakes to try to avoid a ticket. Those are the safest type of traffic incident and I'd happily trade a pedestrian getting hit for a couple rear-endings.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’d happily trade a pedestrian getting hit for a couple rear-endings.

In other words, you're okay with creating more traffic accidents, as long as the victims belong to a group that you find acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

In other words, I'm okay with causing minor financial burden to prevent serious injury or death.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Minor? The financial burden of your car getting totaled and your spine getting damaged can easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars! And that's assuming the impact doesn't kill or paralyze you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Compared to getting hit by a car as a pedestrian? C’mon now.

Besides, it’s only fair for the person choosing to move at a speed that’s more likely to cause injury to accept the risk inherent in their action, rather than shifting it onto an innocent bystander whose chosen velocity is unlikely to do physical damage. (Not just cars. I feel this way about bikes too. Walking is the standard, if you’re going faster on purpose, you bear responsibility for that.)