• funkless_eck
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “it does not deterrent speeding”

    according to the facts I sourced above, it does.

    according to your unsourced opinion with nothing to back it up except that you “live near there” - it doesn’t. I’ll change my opinion when you can provide some facts like I did. (although I retain the right to scrutinize and offer my opinion on those facts).

    it would be more effective… to enforce… on the spot

    I disagree. You can enforce for every car with a camera, you can enforce 1 car with a person in another car - so by what metrics of efficacy are you holding this to? It seems like you’re saying it’s better to stop one person now than it is to stop thousands of people regularly.

    If they don’t care about safety, why is the person who doesn’t care about safety better in person, with a gun, giving chase in a dangerous location?

    • lingh0e@lemmy.film
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If a person is speeding and unknowingly gets tagged by a speed camera, it doesn’t stop their speeding at the time. Hence it is not about safety.

      If someone is speeding then slows down just long enough to avoid getting tagged by the speed camera, then resumes speeding, it is not about safety.

      If the tickets can be literally thrown in the garbage without a second thought and the issuing party can’t do a thing about it, it is not about safety.

      There are better ways to make people aware of their driving habits. A shitty unmanned speed camera is not one of those ways.

      • funkless_eck
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        a) only true if not signposted, and I specifically said it should be. isn’t cops stopping you also only a deterrent if you get caught at that time? if a camera is there permanently you know not to speed after getting caught, if a cop is there on Monday they might not be on Tuesday

        b) we disagree, that’s exactly what safety is to me. I don’t wear a condom if I’m not having sex, and you don’t need to slow down if you’re in an area where you can go fast — are you assuming I mean to make people slow down on the freeway? i am not, i am talking about accident prone areas where slowing down would save lives

        c) so don’t make the tickets be able to be thrown in the garbage?

        d) what are they, then?

        • lingh0e@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can just admit that you want intrusive observation that skips due process because it fits the narrative you want to force on everyone else.

          It’s okay.

          I personally think it’s a terrible idea.

          • funkless_eck
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            this is what’s known as a “straw man” — you used words I didn’t to make a point I hadn’t and then criticize the point you made up.

            It’s considered impolite.

            • lingh0e@lemmy.film
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A government agency is using a flimsy excuse to extort money from it’s citizens, accusing people of a crime without due process… and you’ve made it clear that you think it’s a worthy trade off for the illusion of safer roads.

              • funkless_eck
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you’re drastically blowing speeding fines out of proportion and severely underestimating the cost and impact of bad driving.