this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024
1058 points (93.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26812 readers
3403 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

!fuckcars@lemmy.world

The absolute entitlement.

Edit: For those not wanting to read through this whole thing, speed cameras have been shown objectively in a systematic analysis of 35 studies to reduce traffic injuries and deaths.

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors' conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

Edit 2: That being said, speed cams are objectively helpful aren't the sole tool we should be using. Traffic calming is enormously beneficial and cost-effective for making places with roads safer for drivers and pedestrians.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Is it the cars, or is it police using laws as revenue generators that intentionally affect the poor disproportionately?

[–] tfw_no_toiletpaper@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are allowed to drive the speed limit, even if you're poor 😇

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Not if the speed camera runs your plates to determine you're poor and notifies the police of an inbound precariat, letting them use their psychokinesis to entrap you into speeding.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Would it generate revenue if people didn't feel so entitled to put others' lives in greater jeopardy to get to their destination 30 seconds faster? No? Not speeding is the easiest thing in the world; it's an objective number not to exceed that you directly control and that your car tells you in real time, but at least in the US, drivers are in an arms race to see what kind of bullshit they can get away with, making cops less likely to pull them over. This means that when the average driver can – without warning and with precision – be dinged for speeding, they throw a tantrum about it and act like they've been victimized.

Ticketing does disproportionately affect the poor, and we should reform ticketing to change based on income, but can you seriously tell me with a straight face that the people doing this are doing it because they're protesting socioeconomic injustice? Or because they're entitled drivers who want to be able to speed with impunity? It's the drivers here being entitled and thinking that they're above the law. Personal vehicles are a privilege, not a right, but drivers don't treat it like one. Over 100 people per day die to motor vehicle crashes in the US alone, and kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity; if drivers don't like speed limits, they're more than welcome to stay off the streets and stop thinking their personal convenience trumps people's right to life.

[–] Jarvis2323@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

These cameras do nothing to improve safety. There is no meaningful scientific evidence that shows any difference improvement in safety.

Their only value is socioeconomic harm.

“after accounting for MVC increases in the control segment we found that neither camera placement nor removal had an independent impact on MVCs. In other words, speed cameras did not statistically contribute to an increase or decrease in the number of MVC.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3861844/#:~:text=after%20accounting%20for%20mvc%20increases%20in%20the%20control%20segment%20we%20found%20that%20neither%20camera%20placement%20nor%20removal%20had%20an%20independent%20impact%20on%20mvcs.%20in%20other%20words%2C%20speed%20cameras%20did%20not%20statistically%20contribute%20to%20an%20increase%20or%20decrease%20in%20the%20number%20of%20mvc.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Your own study links to a Cochrane systematic review which states the following:

Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

You linked a study that took place along a single 26-mile stretch of road in Arizona, and while it does some good toward controlling for confounding variables, a single, highly localized study simply isn't as robust as a Cochrane systematic review.

Moreover, the study you link focuses on the number of collisions, while the Cochrane review focuses on injuries and deaths. What we were talking about before was – say it with me – injuries and deaths because of entitled, speeding drivers.

[–] Jarvis2323@programming.dev -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It focused on the Arizona study because that was the only one out of the 35 that actually measured Motor Vehicle Collisions. The rest did not even attempt it in any controlled manner.

As stated, there are no meaningful studies that these cameras reduce accidents.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it sounds to me like you're not disputing the fact that they have a protective effect against injury and death. Maybe you should clarify that in your prior comment if that's how you feel.

[–] Jarvis2323@programming.dev -4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I am in fact stating that there is no proof that they do anything to reduce collusions or deaths. I stated in my first comment that such proof does not exist.

These cameras are only deployed to generate revenue. There is no scientific basis for improved safety.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you're going to go back on the death (and injury) part now that it has been pointed out that the study you linked was only about the collisions. And itself points research that shows that there is a reduction in death (and injury).

Right?

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

The authors of the systematic review had no reservations in asserting that the cameras lowered injuries and deaths, so how do they not affect safety? Do the cameras emit cancer-causing 5G beams or something that bring the number of injuries and deaths back into equillibrium?

A recent Cochrane review examining 35 studies investigating the effect of speed cameras on speed and collisions concluded that although the quality of the studies was moderate at best, the consistency of all studies to report a positive reduction in either speed or collisions was impressive

That's 35 for and one against, due to heavily manipulating no less than 5 different variables, in order to force themselves to have to conclude that speed cameras don't improve safety.

Read your links folks!

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so the camera can't be wrong? now someone has to go to traffic court if they want to fight it over a camera that's 1 second off or uncalibrated?

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Boy, I can just feel the salt from a past speeding ticket coming from this comment.

Maybe stop being a shitty driver who feels entitled to break traffic laws designed to keep people safe from entitled, careless idiots in their two-tonne metal box. 💀 You're whining elsewhere in the thread about a 37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn't because of a culture of entitled drivers), so you're not even complaining about accuracy so much as how much illegal driving you think you should be able to get away with. Speed limits are already across the board much higher than they should be to cater to cars; if you don't feel like you're competent enough to do something as trivial as stay exactly the speed limit when they're already unfairly high in your favor, then it's a limit for a reason: you can go a mph or two slower than it, and you won't, like, die or anything.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

37 in a 35 (3.2 km/h over, which should actually be taken seriously by law enforcement but isn’t because of a culture of entitled drivers)

LMAO

you're basing this all off of people breaking the law completely ignoring the fact that police ABUSE the FUCK out of people for nothing. don't act all high and mighty like you never do anything wrong.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  • I've never gotten a speeding ticket or pulled over for speeding.
  • I don't speed.

I hope that was easy enough for you to understand. I'm sorry about your past speeding ticket(s). I hope you can someday find the strength to move on and become a more mindful driver.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)
  1. if you drive at the speed limit you won't have a problem

  2. the speed camera will be well signposted (car on the left so this is the UK) while it's not a legal requirement that they have signposts I've never come across a fixed camera that isn't

  3. If you don't break the law you won't have a problem

  4. the camera is painted bright yellow for visibility

  5. once again for the those at the back who are hard of thinking: don't speed and you won't get fined

  6. usually for first time offences if you're just a bit over the limit you'll get the option of a speed awareness course.

  7. You've probably come to expect odd numbered points to tell you to not break the law by now, so I'll mix it up: if you get caught breaking the law and get a slap on the wrist, don't keep breaking the law.


I do agree though that the fining structure should be reformed, it should be a percentage of income with some provision in place so the super rich can't get out of paying their appropriate share too.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  1. If you don't break the law you won't have a problem

this MF is a bootlicker if I've ever seen one.

there are a million ways a cop would fuck you over, primarily being "not white" or looking at them wrong, NOTHING to do with law.

I'll give the UK a break as they're not nearly as bad as the US, but cops are not your friends and that sentence quotes is a joke.

"if you got nothing to hide, let me search your car"

fuck no.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No. This is a safety thing. This is multiple tons moving at speed. This gets regulated.

[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't think anyone has ever received a speeding fine from a speed camera who was going at the speed limit.

Stop being a cunt and think of others road safety.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The first two are newsworthy because of their exceptionality. Thousands of cameras two issues.

The third link points 100% away from the argument that it's just to get revenue. If it were they would be actively decreasing the amount of dropped fines. They'd be making sure cameras were calibrated correctly (as if they're not the court would throw out) and that they weren't

unable to send tickets to motorists in the post within the allotted time before they are no longer valid

and that they wouldn't suffer from a

lack of resources to bring cases to court

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] then_three_more@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know what the rules are in the USA but over here you should be stopping on amber, not blasting through.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-controlling-traffic

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

you don't have to blast through, but there are times when you can't stop, and there are expected time frames between yellow to red depending on the speed limit no that street and if the city is reducing that time, when the rest of the nation knows what it should be, that should be 100% criminal charges to whoever decided to do that.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People trying to argue with this point, but the point is that if the punishment for a crime is fine, then the crime only punishes the poor.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm cool with impounding cars and putting drivers in jail.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's an issue yes, but objectively America needs to slow down. Accidents above 70 have a sharply increased chance of death. Nobody needs to be doing more than 65. Electric cars also use a lot more energy and tire material to go above 65 and gas cars are using more gas to do it. This generally happens because in order to maintain those speeds they're constantly accelerating and braking around other cars.

I'm sorry driving isn't fun, it was never meant to be once we obliterated mass transit in the US. It's meant to get you to the destination, preferably safely.

[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sorry driving isn't fun, it was never meant to be once we obliterated mass transit in the US. It's meant to get you to the destination, preferably safely.

You've never been in a fun car on a fun twisty back road. This is what driving should be, as we should not be dependent on driving to get everywhere.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Oh I have. I used to ride motorcycles and there's no better way to feel out those roads, I've been off-road too.

But the reality is it is the main form of transportation and it is not optional for most Americans. Which means we have a duty to make it as safe as possible. Yeah that also means boring. We've largely let capitalism and personal preference rule the day and motor vehicle accidents are the largest non-disease cause of death because of it.

And before anyone gets all up in arms about the every day person knowing a ton of regulations, this should all be taken care of on the manufacturer and seller side of things. The size requirements for commercial licenses should come right down to invalidating future purchases of giant pickup trucks, you know the ones, so big they can't park properly and an M1A2 tank has better visibility. Speed governors should prevent going over 80mph. Headlights should have a max capacity and a thermal camera should be standard to make night driving clear as day.

But the biggest thing by far is we need to make a project of mass transit such that driving becomes a profession and a hobby, not the main means of transportation. If we can get commuters and road trippers off the road then motor vehicle accident deaths will fall dramatically.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are no speed limits on German motorways yet the death and accident rate is not higher that in their neighbours' countries. Go figure.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The statistic here isn't accidents. It's fatalities in accidents at X speed. Germans aren't driving cars that are any safer than the rest of Europe. If they get into an accident at 70mph or higher then their chance of death is also sharply increased.

The big difference between German roads and American ones is Germans can generally opt out by taking a train. Americans cannot.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Are you a little bit slow? You surely must grasp the concept that for it to be a fatality, an accident must happen first?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it doesn't matter that the accidents that do happen are more deadly? As long as there are less over all?

Why can't we have less accidents and less death?

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

So, are you a little bit slow?

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is the most Lemmy thread ever. If only my instance hadn’t blocked hexbear. ❤️❤️❤️

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'm glad I could help to make your day just a bit more magical. 🎆🎇✨