• funkless_eck
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    wouldn’t a decrease in tickets imply it is having an effect though?

    and isn’t slowing down in a dangerous area to speed a provable effect of its success?

    isn’t someone modifying their behavior after the fact better than not modifying it at all?

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

      Or maybe the decrease in tickets is because of the giant billboard a local smoke shop erected saying “there’s a speed trap here.”

      Dude, just admit that this speed camera is a blatant cash grab.

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

        Ive admitted it three or four times. So for clarity, again, yes it is predicated on money. Yes, it is a cash grab. Yes it is a tax. It is a tax grab, it is a cash tax. It is a cash grab. I personally feel the term “cash grab” is a little loaded emotionally and isn’t necessarily the best and most accurate way to describe it. But it seems you care a great deal about me saying the words, so I have said them. it is a cash grab.

        All transactions are a cash grab. Name something that isn’t. I have said from the start that the “cash grab” “tax” etc is part of the deterrent, but, to me, at least, that is better than death.

        Furthermore - cops issuing tickets is a cash grab. Cops arresting people and them going to court and getting fined is a cash grab. Forfeiting your car is a cash grab. Paying to attend remedial driving school is a cash grab. We live in a capitalist society, everything is a cash grab.

        I have from the start said that prevention (the cash grab) is part of the desired outcome, it is in my original comment. It is good to fine people who do bad things because it makes them do it less- as evinced by the sources I have provided - and it helps repay the cost of their antisocial behavior back to society.

        Now that we are very clear that we both agree

        1. it is a cash grab

        2. why I think that cash grab is a good thing

        3. that the good thing is the decrease in speeding

        I am curious to hear why you think the cash grab - or to use my preferred nomenclature - a deterrent - is a fate worse than death?

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

          Have you read anything I’ve been writing? It is does not deter speeding. Outside of the 100 yards the camera it’s business as usual. People receive tickets AFTER THE FACT. It would be more effective to have actual police enforcing limits ON THE SPOT. They do not care about safety, they are literally just trying to generate money for themselves and their cronies.

          • 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.