American perspective here, who does own a bicycle and has ridden it to work and around town with my wife and had aggressive drivers either stop and threaten to murder me by running me over (threatening me in front of their infant children) and other aggressive drivers pass me in MY lane within about a foot, instead of changing lanes and giving me the lane that belongs to me…. (Both kinds of incidents happened while riding in the road, which is legal here and gives me full ownership of the lane).
But, all that being said I saw this post and thought ‘that’s cool, rage against the machine here and kick big brother’s ass. Why would I want more surveillance, especially something that’s very likely automated (and therefore untrustworthy by default)?
Lowering the speed limits, putting in speed plateaus or other methods of controlling traffic? Sure. But, I’m not big on automated surveillance state stuff.
But, 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.
These cameras are a slippery slope of being cited, ticketed, charged or fined without an officer on site verifying that you were the one who actually committed the offense. 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? Why should you have to defend yourself at all? Why shouldn’t they use methods that ensure they’re citing the correct person, such as having an officer present to verify that the owner* was the operator and perpetrator too? “Oh, but they caught the driver’s blurry face, and it arguably looks like the owner!” But, is it? Are these cameras and automated systems, even with certified officers reviewing the video, which isn’t the case the majority of the time, infallible? How* do we know that the camera was properly calibrated that day? How do we know that it didn’t mistake XYZ other circumstance for this person erroneously?
These are a bad idea. Instead let’s build better infrastructure or assign people, real life people, to deter speeding or reckless driving. People are fallible, sure, but at least the driver is verified, the driver is cited, and then the person we verified was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the incident… can go across town to defend themselves in court. “Oh, but he sped away! We’ll never know who the driver was and now we’re just going to cite the owner, anyway!” Continued shit policing, if you’re interested, how about you investigate by going to the listed address and doing some police work.
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.
“I do not recall.”, “You prove it was me.”, “Can you even prove it was me?”, “What proof do you have that it was me?”, “How do we know that your device isn’t malfunctioning and erroneously ticketing me?”, “I wasn’t speeding, but you’re citing me without an officer having been present to witness the act in person and verify it was me driving?”, “I am not required to make your case against me for you.” “You prove that I didn’t sell the car, or that it wasn’t borrowed without my knowledge, or that I failed to report it stolen.”, “oh, sorry, I forgot to report it stolen… but, I shouldn’t be required to defend myself after being cited, you should be required to prove it was me before citing me.”
Sure, you get cited in person and then have to go to court to defend yourself. But, at least they’ve established that you were the operator of the vehicle.
I do not suggest giving the government the opportunity or power to cite the owner by default without first establishing that you were the individual who committed the offense or crime. I also don’t suggest giving the power to automated camera devices that have been shown, in certain cases with certain devices, to be fallible in how they determine someone committed the crime or offense.
How about sending them warnings from the device and only citations from an actual officer in person when caught in the act? A certain number of warnings to the offending vehicle could require the owner to then present themselves to discuss the situation before citations are given. Refusing to present oneself by a certain period could then result in sending a police officer to the registered address to the vehicle to then continue their investigation… in person.
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.
Speed plateaus are great for limiting speed. There’s a residential neighborhood in my area, two lane, 1ea either direction, that has a few of them with the gentle slopes up to a flat topped plateau and down again, not just larger speed bumps, but plateaued. You can even put cross walks on these. The speed limit in that area is 25mph in that section.
That isn’t a fix all for every* situation, but there are other options, especially other than using automated surveillance systems that are regularly questioned for being excessive, biased, fallible, and for being used by jurisdictions as free and unchecked revenue sources.
Especially when infrastructure engineering doesn’t become a revenue source that the jurisdiction then relies on, which leads them to build more, while also funneling tax payer money into third party venders who are also capable of either reviewing the data collected or viewing that data themselves. Some of these outsource to third parties to manage the traffic enforcement process, instead of having law enforcement certified and city/jurisdiction employed peace officers from being the only ones who can view or review the data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What would work better is installing speed plateaus that would require drivers to slow down. That’s what I’m saying. Cameras don’t do that. Especially since they’re already being targeted for vandalism. Waste more money on police surveillance state equipment, or do a cost analysis on whether not just adding speed plateaus would cause much safer driving without increasing gov’t surveillance?
Cameras have been shown to:
1., not fully address the issue by causing drops in speeding or accidents in the area,
2., to instead target lower income and marginalized communities,
3., to march further toward police surveillance states with cop cars that run all license plates in their area, with fears of AI operated cameras with facial recognition, and like I already mentioned,
4., lead to non-police or government agencies to get personal information of drivers in the area,
5., lead to the possibility of third parties without peace officer certification to police the area instead of the police in that jurisdiction,
6., cause jurisdictions to continue to put more and more of these devices in already marginalized communities to increase their tax and police revenue through increased citations.
There are a huge number of reasons that this is bad or could be bad. But, what’s significantly easier is traffic engineering, which doesn’t lead to increased police surveillance states and unfair ticketing.
But, hey. If this community couldn’t be bothered to have speed bumps, or specifically speed plateaus, put in… because it would cause normal drivers the inconvenience of driving up and over them… and they’d rather have cameras put in. 🤷♂️
But, I guess some people there don’t feel the same as them.
American perspective here, who does own a bicycle and has ridden it to work and around town with my wife and had aggressive drivers either stop and threaten to murder me by running me over (threatening me in front of their infant children) and other aggressive drivers pass me in MY lane within about a foot, instead of changing lanes and giving me the lane that belongs to me…. (Both kinds of incidents happened while riding in the road, which is legal here and gives me full ownership of the lane).
But, all that being said I saw this post and thought ‘that’s cool, rage against the machine here and kick big brother’s ass. Why would I want more surveillance, especially something that’s very likely automated (and therefore untrustworthy by default)?
Lowering the speed limits, putting in speed plateaus or other methods of controlling traffic? Sure. But, I’m not big on automated surveillance state stuff.
Any differing opinions?
Speed cameras don’t discriminate on who they stop, and their enforcement doesn’t turn violent like it can do for human enforcement.
But, 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.
These cameras are a slippery slope of being cited, ticketed, charged or fined without an officer on site verifying that you were the one who actually committed the offense. 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? Why should you have to defend yourself at all? Why shouldn’t they use methods that ensure they’re citing the correct person, such as having an officer present to verify that the owner* was the operator and perpetrator too? “Oh, but they caught the driver’s blurry face, and it arguably looks like the owner!” But, is it? Are these cameras and automated systems, even with certified officers reviewing the video, which isn’t the case the majority of the time, infallible? How* do we know that the camera was properly calibrated that day? How do we know that it didn’t mistake XYZ other circumstance for this person erroneously?
These are a bad idea. Instead let’s build better infrastructure or assign people, real life people, to deter speeding or reckless driving. People are fallible, sure, but at least the driver is verified, the driver is cited, and then the person we verified was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the incident… can go across town to defend themselves in court. “Oh, but he sped away! We’ll never know who the driver was and now we’re just going to cite the owner, anyway!” Continued shit policing, if you’re interested, how about you investigate by going to the listed address and doing some police work.
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.
You’d have reported your car stolen to the police. Again, lying about this is a serious offence.
“I do not recall.”, “You prove it was me.”, “Can you even prove it was me?”, “What proof do you have that it was me?”, “How do we know that your device isn’t malfunctioning and erroneously ticketing me?”, “I wasn’t speeding, but you’re citing me without an officer having been present to witness the act in person and verify it was me driving?”, “I am not required to make your case against me for you.” “You prove that I didn’t sell the car, or that it wasn’t borrowed without my knowledge, or that I failed to report it stolen.”, “oh, sorry, I forgot to report it stolen… but, I shouldn’t be required to defend myself after being cited, you should be required to prove it was me before citing me.”
Sure, you get cited in person and then have to go to court to defend yourself. But, at least they’ve established that you were the operator of the vehicle.
I do not suggest giving the government the opportunity or power to cite the owner by default without first establishing that you were the individual who committed the offense or crime. I also don’t suggest giving the power to automated camera devices that have been shown, in certain cases with certain devices, to be fallible in how they determine someone committed the crime or offense.
How about sending them warnings from the device and only citations from an actual officer in person when caught in the act? A certain number of warnings to the offending vehicle could require the owner to then present themselves to discuss the situation before citations are given. Refusing to present oneself by a certain period could then result in sending a police officer to the registered address to the vehicle to then continue their investigation… in person.
Just build better infrastructure.
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.
Speed plateaus are great for limiting speed. There’s a residential neighborhood in my area, two lane, 1ea either direction, that has a few of them with the gentle slopes up to a flat topped plateau and down again, not just larger speed bumps, but plateaued. You can even put cross walks on these. The speed limit in that area is 25mph in that section.
That isn’t a fix all for every* situation, but there are other options, especially other than using automated surveillance systems that are regularly questioned for being excessive, biased, fallible, and for being used by jurisdictions as free and unchecked revenue sources.
Especially when infrastructure engineering doesn’t become a revenue source that the jurisdiction then relies on, which leads them to build more, while also funneling tax payer money into third party venders who are also capable of either reviewing the data collected or viewing that data themselves. Some of these outsource to third parties to manage the traffic enforcement process, instead of having law enforcement certified and city/jurisdiction employed peace officers from being the only ones who can view or review the data.
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.
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
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/annoying-thing-speed-cameras-ottawa-they-work-1.6786951
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:
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.
What would work better is installing speed plateaus that would require drivers to slow down. That’s what I’m saying. Cameras don’t do that. Especially since they’re already being targeted for vandalism. Waste more money on police surveillance state equipment, or do a cost analysis on whether not just adding speed plateaus would cause much safer driving without increasing gov’t surveillance?
Cameras have been shown to:
1., not fully address the issue by causing drops in speeding or accidents in the area,
2., to instead target lower income and marginalized communities,
3., to march further toward police surveillance states with cop cars that run all license plates in their area, with fears of AI operated cameras with facial recognition, and like I already mentioned,
4., lead to non-police or government agencies to get personal information of drivers in the area,
5., lead to the possibility of third parties without peace officer certification to police the area instead of the police in that jurisdiction,
6., cause jurisdictions to continue to put more and more of these devices in already marginalized communities to increase their tax and police revenue through increased citations.
There are a huge number of reasons that this is bad or could be bad. But, what’s significantly easier is traffic engineering, which doesn’t lead to increased police surveillance states and unfair ticketing.
But, hey. If this community couldn’t be bothered to have speed bumps, or specifically speed plateaus, put in… because it would cause normal drivers the inconvenience of driving up and over them… and they’d rather have cameras put in. 🤷♂️
But, I guess some people there don’t feel the same as them.
Edit: 3.10 “Speed Hump” https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-3-part-2
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