- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- canada@lemmy.ca
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/44712264
These up-eds usually complain that photo radar would be fine if the radar worked properly. This one doesn’t even do that. It just complains that speed limits aren’t fair and now drivers have to change their behavior. jfc
It is true that drivers can avoid such tickets by sticking to the posted speed limits, but it is also true that drivers are hardly ever expected to strictly observe those limits.
…
It’s like the generally accepted contract between drivers and police – just drive at a reasonable speed and you’ll be fine – has been broken.
The opinion piece is epitome ‘fuck cars’. Authored by the prickiest of pricks:
35% above speed limit
bc we’re all normal, amirite?
speed should be discretionary (my discretion, ofc)
Setting the car aspect aside, there really should be some element of discretion in the criminal justice system.
Mandatory minimums and AI-assisted parole hearings produce outcomes that people know are unfair when they see the end result. But it’s difficult to convince people to avoid adopting them at the start, because we have this bias towards thinking that “quantitative and rule-based” automatically means fair, without thinking of the fact that someone needs to design the metrics and the measurement systems.
The biases of the police force and judges aren’t fair either, but I don’t think the answer is to put those decisions entirely in the hands of data analysts and policy wonks who are even further removed from the communities they impact.
Adding the car aspect back in, I think the biggest concern I have is the surveillance capability these enable.
Which one? That a photo is taken once a speed limit violation is detected? The one you can simply avoid by not driving like a fucking maniac?
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious
> Strg F
> Speed
> 0 Results
Hmm
Yeah, these are all narcissist arguments. The only argument that should be made is the fact they don’t actually reduce accidents, fatalities, or make the roads any safer (the fixed kinds, at least).
Cool, except this article has citations that dispute your uncited ‘facts’
In other words: “there are no facts to dispute the use of speed camera”
Agreed.
Yeah, I’m admittedly going off mainstream media talking points from 15-20 years ago, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have been proven otherwise.
There’s a strong financial incentive to falsify the stats in their favor though, where there simply isn’t for the opposite.