this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
289 points (98.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

15890 readers
1044 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If the punishment is a static fine it's only illegal for the poor.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The point isn't to punish people, it's to keep people un-killed. If speed cameras don't work on 2% because they are wealthy sociopaths, that's not a reason to abandon the intervention that has been clearly proven to work at the intended purpose of keeping people from getting killed. This is such a bizarre objection. Perhaps it is a reflex earned from decades of looking for how the poor get screwed and that's admirable but it kind of looks like looking for any excuse not to have to slow down.

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Do you have evidence that speed cameras with fines are clearly proven to "keep people from getting killed" because I'm pretty sure their primary purpose is revenue generation.

Edit: looking into it, it seems the majority of the available data generally indicates a reduction in collisions and fatalities but apparently the methodology across the various studies has been pretty inconsistent so there's no hard numbers. But apparently they range from no reduction at all to 70 percent from my glancing at the data, apparently how many cameras how far apart and how far from the high traffic incident area are the main determining factors in reducing accidents. I may have overlooked it but I didn't actually see anywhere that shows the speed reduction after camera introduction though.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What are you even doing in this community? Go watch Not Just Bikes for a few hours before you post here again.

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When speed cameras were first introduced they led to an uptick in accidents because people would brake suddenly when they saw the camera and get rear ended. This still happens but thought out implementation seems to result in a net reduction in collisions but more data is needed. All this is to say the primary purpose of speed cameras is still revenue generation.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

All this is to say the primary purpose of speed cameras is still revenue generation.

That's not what Doug Ford said when he deployed them. He, citing the actual designers of the infrastructure, said it was a safety measure. But for some fucking reason, pedestrian safety and anything that inconveniences a motorist have become issues in the Culture War. Now his idiotic base is convinced that speed cameras are somehow a revenue issue, and so Doug Ford has changed his tune. But it's just not reality. The speed cameras they we are talking about right now are deployed as a traffic-calming (ie pedestrian-not-killing) measure.

PEDESTRIANS DO NOT GET REAR-ENDED. IDGAF if motorists are hitting each other more often. That's explicitly not the fucking point. Are you even aware that pedestrians are getting killed more now than any time in the last 40 years? There is a crisis happening right now and we need these interventions. So sorry if it inconveniences you.

Like I just said, you have clearly never even encountered serious, informed discussion on these subjects. Go watch some Oh The Urbanity and get back to us when you have an opinion that wasn't given to you to enlist you in the Culture War.

[–] edible_funk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

You didn't get hugged much as a child huh?