121
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

I find these threads entertaining because it pits Lemmys hatred of cars against its hatred of police departments

[-] JayBeeTX@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

This. I’m quickly learning Lemmy is populated with an interesting group of folks.

[-] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah it leans very hard leftist. I hope as the platform grows it will get a little more diversity of opinion but I love the concept of open-source social media (if you can even call it that). For now I just block all the news and political communities; occasionally something gets through but that's fine.

[-] kahnclusions@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Speed cameras need to be accompanied by roads that are designed to physically calm traffic.

I used to drive a lot in London, and there are speed cameras all over the place there, and it certainly helps when they are ubiquitous, but what really makes people slow down are the narrow, curved and winding roads.

[-] JayBeeTX@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Speed cameras (and by extension red light cameras) are generally nothing more than a money grab by a municipality.

Speed cameras were introduced in my area. It caused accidents to go up, not down. Ex: Person A sees the camera and slows down, but person B doesn’t and now swerves to avoid them while maintaining speed. Or doesn’t and just rear ends them. The cameras got deactivated. Speed traps aren’t a good answer.

[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

FYI, it's "eg:", not Ex.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

As described, the cause of the accident is driving too fast for the conditions, inattentive driving and possibly following too close. Every US jurisdiction I have driven in requires a driver to maintain speed and spacing that allows them to stop safely if the vehicle in front of them comes to a sudden stop. If a driver needs to take evasive action to avoid a vehicle that is not stopped, but just slowing, that is one shitty driver. We are all better off if individuals like that are ticketed and get points on their license.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago

This is one of the reasons places have taken out red light cameras, as well. It was causing people to slam on the brakes.

[-] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

It was causing people to stop at red lights? Can't have that can we.

It causes people to stop at the first sign of a yellow light, whether or not it was actually safe to or not.

Many cities who implemented red light cameras also deliberately decreased the length of yellow lights in order to boost tickets.

Rear-end collisions are significantly safer than T-bone collisions though.

Sucks for those affected but reduces deaths nonetheless. A fivefold increase in rear-end collisions doesn't offset the benefit from even just a 10% reduction in T-bones. Put them up everywhere and people will necessarily get used to them. These cameras exist everywhere around here in Germany and no one really slams on their breaks.

Besides, why haven't you created norms for the duration of the yellow light based on the speed limit of a road? I feel like that's something every country should have.

[-] PedestrianError@towns.gay 6 points 4 days ago

@half_fiction @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble A greater raw number of crashes is sometimes observed when a new red light camera is introduced, but severe injuries and fatalities go down. The crashes prevented are of more severe types, like t-bone crashes or hitting people, while any extra crashes are the rear end variety which produces few major injuries. Plus, rear end crashes are 100% the fault of the trailing driver following too closely. After an introductory period, more people learn not to tailgate.

[-] PedestrianError@towns.gay 6 points 4 days ago

@half_fiction @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble Tailgating is a ridiculously stupid behavior that far too many US drivers routinely engage in. It's like nobody had physics or driver's ed in high school. On any given day, 1/4 of the drivers are following the vehicle in front of them at a speed and distance that would not allow them to stop if the car in front encountered an obstacle and had to stop or slow suddenly. It's completely preventable and cars can and should be designed to prevent it.

[-] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This assumes you can see and recognize the camera. Driving in sf there's so many other things you're watching out for, and the streets/sidewalks have so much other shit going on that you'd be hard pressed to spot the camera.

Also like someone else mentioned it could increase overall incidents but if those are minor, like getting rear ended, it's well worth reducing pedestrian fatalities.

NYC implemented speeding cameras and saw a 94% reduction in speeding and a 14% reduction in injuries and fatalities

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 4 days ago

Im Brazil all speed cameras have signs before them, so drivers can know the camera is in front and slow down. They are installed strategically, to slow down drivers before conflict points or pedestrian crossings.

[-] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago

...because adding cameras to watch the public for 'safety' has never been horribly abused.

[-] shininghero@pawb.social 24 points 4 days ago

Additionally, any driver traveling more than 100 mph on city streets can expect a $500 ticket from the cameras.

What sort of lunatic is going that fast on dense city roads, and why is it not escalating straight to an arrest warrant and a revocation of their driver's license?

[-] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

Lol right. I haven't been to the part of San Francisco where 100 mph driving wouldn't be insane. Maybe on some kind of super street bike but even then...

[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 days ago

I thought the cab I was in that was hitting 60 mph on those hills was insane, 100 seems terminal.

[-] WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago
[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago

It was like a roller coaster with no tracks! So yes, absolutely. I just grabbed my husband’s hand for moral support and hoped the driver was driving like this because he knew what he was doing, haha.

[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

People race through GG park at night. They used to race on great highway too, but I guess they don't anymore since it's closed to car traffic now. Of course that never stopped biker gangs so I guess they still do crazy stunt shit.

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

It might be the night time street races that can hit 100 between lights when commuter traffic is next to none.

In Toronto you got most people driving 20 above the posted limit like it's nothing mostly during the day, but come night when the roadways are clear and empty some are going 30 over.

[-] dickalan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Fuck, surveillance capitalism with my golden fucking dick, fuck this, design better roads, not better cameras

[-] oeuf@slrpnk.net 18 points 4 days ago

Speed cameras are very common in the UK and while they don't eliminate speeding altogether, they are effective.

Apart from the risk of either a fine, doing a 'speed awareness' course or losing your license, it also means that people who are driving too fast regardless are more likely to simply get stuck behind other drivers who are observing the speed limit.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Fuck this shit, fuck how they target minority communities with it, fuck how every technology is eventually used against you by the state

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

My prognostication:

if it reduces the number of speeders then the system won't pay for itself, and SF will remove the cameras.

[-] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

You can reduce the number of speeders AND issue more tickets, which I'd say is the most likely outcome.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago

This is interesting. I'm curious to see how it goes, though I generally refuse to drive in SF.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

It will go the same way it goes in every other city that has tried this. After a few years they'll realize it isn't profitable so they'll pull all the cameras out.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
121 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12891 readers
581 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS