I don’t disagree, but it’s funny to me how certain things are prioritized because they are cash grabs. There are many other aspects of driving that need to be policed which aren’t limited to speeding, red lights, and parking. It feels like the police/city are disinterested in pursuing anything else, I’m assuming because effort is involved. I see drivers so often fucking around with phones / eyes on something other than the road which is as dangerous as, if not more dangerous than, going 10 km/h over the speed limit. I see tons of super aggressive driving too.
I’m not saying stop speed enforcement with cameras, but maybe police other things that aren’t immediately profitable too.
Just need speed bumps. Speed bumps every few blocks on every street where the limits are below 60km/h. There’s no more sure way short of rebuilding the entire roads.
Tire degradation comes from heat. Going slower produces less heat and therefore less pollution. On top of that, slower speeds are better for fuel economy as you aren’t dealing with wind resistance as much. That’s why the u.s. set the national speed limit to 55 during the 70s oil crises. Of course today’s cars that use hybrid and cvt transmissions are even more efficient at slower speeds than cars from 50 years ago.
Going slower may produce less heat but does decelerating produce less heat? Some may drive slower but most will speed up and then brake before each speed bump.
When you brake the tires rubber is what actually slows the vehicle for the most part, and many may skid if they accidentally brake to hard before a speed bump, contributing to more rubber being washed away into nearby catch basins and creeks.
I can accept what you’re saying about heat as true, but I don’t think you’re addressing the issue of repeated acceleration and deceleration as it relates to speed bumps. Some amount of extra tire wear will occur due to the extra forces involved in acceleration and deceleration, regardless of the temperature of the rubber.
I agree that slower speeds are better for fuel economy due to the wind resistance issue, but that’s very different from saying that a road with speed bumps is better for fuel economy when many of the drivers will be accelerating and braking between each bump, instead of traveling at a constant speed.
On side is a park, the other side is residential.
This is the exact place where you’d want low speed limits. Some cities treat the roads beside parks like school zones, dropping the speed to 25 or 30 kph.
Which is why we need to design our streets so that the speed at which drivers are comfortable matches the speed that is safe and sensible for the other people sharing the street, such as pedestrians and cyclists. Raised crossings, in-street traffic calming, narrow winding streets, paving stones, etc.
Let’s redesign streets for the benefit of the people who live there, rather than the speed and convenience of the cars that drive through. I’m sick of the noisy and dangerous traffic around the place where I live, and I can’t afford to move.
Stroads: The infrastructure that sucks for everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers all the same.
But that’s the Canadian way. Everyone gets a trophy. We’re too “polite” to pick a favourite. We hope that in doing so we can make everyone happy, but end up making everyone unhappy.
The people of the Netherlands are known for being much more, let’s say, blunt. They’re not afraid to choose a winner.
They’re really expensive, apparently. But hey, I think moving them around to the most lucrative locations to maximize earnings for the city (assuming they actually get to collect the money), could be a nice way to help subsidize road maintenance or TTC costs.
Yeah, probably too expensive to literally put them on EVERY street, but they are a tiny investment for the amount of return you get on roads where speeding is common (i.e. the places where these tend to be installed).
If you tell drivers that revenue generated through speeding tickets will towards paying for cycling infrastructure, I’m sure the rates of speeding would plummet. LOL
The issue is less the cost of the device, but for them to work, someone has to process those tickets. That's judges, police, clerks, etc. That's the expensive part and why they aren't the cash grab they look like.
but for them to work, someone has to process those tickets. That’s judges, police, clerks, etc. That’s the expensive part and why they aren’t the cash grab they look like.
According to ASE Ontario, only a provincial offences officer reviews the ticket before issuing a fine. I guess if the ticket is contested, it would involve the courts, just like any other ticket. And you’d have to be an idiot to contest one of these tickets, which has a photo of you speeding. LOL
They also say “The total payable indicated on the ticket includes the set fine, court costs and the victim fine surcharge, which is credited to the provincial victims’ justice fund account.”
Either way, tickets need to be issued, and this just speeds up the process AND reduces speeding in the areas they are implemented.
And don’t like being punished. How about I get a tax break if I don’t speed, rather than getting my money siphoned because I’m running late? No? Then I’m gonna remain happy that we haven’t implemented these where I live.
Using traffic fines to “help plug the hole in the city budget” creates a perverse incentive to create arbitrary traffic rules with which to fine people that don’t actually increase traffic safety, and quite often decrease traffic safety by forcing drivers to focus on potential fines instead of on driving safely.
Highway robbery committed by the government, in other words.
If it’s generating that many fines, it’s most likely trapping unsuspecting people who are driving normally. Most drivers are neither rich nor impatient.
How does forcing drivers to focus on the speed they’re driving decrease safety? They only decrease safety if and only if someone speeding slams on the break - in which case there’s an increase in safety for non-car drivers due to slower cars.
The cameras should be everywhere because people will continue to ignore safety rules to reach their destination 10 seconds earlier for all eternity.
How dies forcing drivers to focus in the speed they’re driving decrease safety?
The camera demands I drive at a speed different from everyone else. That is unsafe.
Also, I have to worry about inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by 1mph for a few seconds and getting a surprise fine despite my efforts to avoid it. That’s a dangerous distraction.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a way for cities to spend less money on highway patrols and make more money on surprise fines. Safety’s got nothing to do with it. It’s all about the money.
in which case there’s an increase in safety for non-car drivers due to slower cars.
Are you insinuating that you’re okay with people being injured or killed, as long as they happen to be inside a vehicle at the time? You hate motorists that much? That’s messed up.
[It’s unsafe to] drive at a speed different from everybody else.
For whom is it unsafe? Certainly not for children on the road. Besides, if everyone was speeding to such an extent that abiding by the speed limit causes accidents, the fines need to be much bigger. The most effective fines are those based on income, don’t you agree?
I have to worry about inadvertently exceeding the speed limit by 1mph for a few seconds.
No you don’t? Firstly, in countries caring about safety, your speedometer’s indicated speed is never less than your actual speed. Since manufacturers would be fined even for a -1% difference, all speedometers show a slightly higher speed compared to your actual speed.
Secondly, where I’m from, speeding cameras will not be set off for speeding 1 mph. Their tolerance is 3 kph for speeds lower than 100 kph and 3% for speeds higher than 100 kph.
Those simple adjustments make you not check your speed constantly. In a 30 kph zone you will probably not get a ticket even if your speedometer shows 35 kph.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a way for cities to spend less money on highway patrols.
What even is the purpose of highway patrols? They’re dangerous and ineffective because you’d need cops everwhere. And since cops already have a bias towards minorities, not everyone is affected the same way. Speeding cameras do not discriminate, do not kill and do not waste money which could be spend to improve the city.
Speeding cameras are the safest and single most effective method of forcing drivers to abide by the laws. Source
Most signifcant result:
Speed cameras alone were associated with a 19% reduction in the likelihood that a crash resulted in an incapacitating or fatal injury
Keep in mind the study focuses on a school zone. Who do you think were the ones being injured?
Are you insinuating that you’re okay with people being injured or killed, as long as they happen to be inside a vehicle at the time?
Say there are n crashes at equal speeds, where a is the number of crashes between 2 or more vehicles and b is the number of crashes between vehicles and bicyclists or pedistrians and n = a + b. Let’s assume n was constant. What results in less death and injury: a < b or a > b?
Add comment