this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2025
56 points (92.4% liked)

Canada

10520 readers
520 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-photo-radar-is-becoming-increasingly-common-that-doesnt-make-it-any/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (12 children)

Not really. Speeding isn't people not caring to go the right speed. If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit.

Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.

Most people HAVE to drive to live, because of no public infrastructure and poor city planning.

It's a STRUCTURAL problem. You can't solve structural problems through individual actions. It's like asking minorities to work harder as the solution to equality. Obama was able to become president so it's got to be possible. It's a distraction from dealing with systemic racism and poverty.

That's basically the reason neoliberalism leads to neofascism. A neoliberal is just someone who admits there are structural problems but thinks collective/systematic solutions are "too extreme" and the problem can be solved if everyone just behaves the right way every time.

Individual solutions don't solve structural problems.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (10 children)

If that was it, only people who break rules would speed. Speeding is a structural problem from the design of cars which accelerate fast and have top speeds as high as double the highest legal died limit, and roads which are designed to be comfortably driven WAY faster than the posted speed limit. Most people speed. The roads are designed for you to speed on. The cars are designed to speed with. Long commutes and traffic to go to an underpaid job mean people are driving at their most frustrated state.

I don't disagree, but the problem is that people are terrible judges of how fast they can react and terrible judges of risk. Tailgating is a major cause of vehicle accidents, and is purely an individual failing. Leaving enough space between the car in front of you and yourself (a well known guideline of 3s in clear weather) is your responsibility and yours alone. Don't care if you're tired, angry, emotional, whatever. If you are getting behind the wheel of a 2+ tonne machine, you need to be responsible for that. Unfortunately most people aren't.

We can argue and disagree on the factors at play, but fundamentally, I don't agree with your thought process where ALL responsibility is offloaded from the individual to a large, faceless entity of 'society'. For sure, many people are not being set up to succeed and be safe while driving, and most shouldn't need to drive at all. I agree - push more bike lanes, push more transit, get trains to actually run alongside major highways to remove single-car commuting vehicles that destroy our environment.

But how can you be claiming that any action taken to slow the deaths and injuries happening by enforcing speed limits is counterproductive action?

40% of speeding drivers involved in fatal crashes are 16-24 years old. 75% of pedestrian fatalities occured on urban, high density roads like those Ontario is in the middle of putting speeding cameras onto. When you consider that pedestrians hit at ~30km/hr has a 5% chance of death, while those hit at 45km/hr has a 45%, and those hit at 60km/hr are at 85% chance of death, there is a very serious argument to be made to enforce 40 and 50km/hr speed limits. By slowing people from 70km/hr to 50km/hr, we can drastically improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the road or sidewalks. In community safety zones with 40km/hr speed limits, enforcing them can increase chance of survival by 40%. Add into that the enormous benefit we would see from a healthcare standpoint when you no longer need to provide care (or provide as serious of care) for accident victims?

How can you be arguing AGAINST speed cameras instead of calling for their implementation everywhere and demanding that funding be reallocated for decarbonization and street redesign? The funding those can pull in is enormous, and as compliance increases, street reconstruction can provide the further increase in fatality reduction.

https://www.radarsign.com/traffic-calming-stats/ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811090

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I understand we disagree. I'm not offloading responsibility of specific incidents to the system. Drivers are still responsible for their actions.

Revenue from traffic cameras goes to mostly the police, not for making roads safer. If we made roads and public transit better we wouldn't need the cameras so they're temporary at best.

As far as safety goes, the data I've seen shows they initially work, then only for about 100m. Red light cameras are the same, they create rear end collisions due to unsafe breaking from someone who should have used the orange light, but was afraid of a ticket.

What I'm saying is we have a systemic problem with known structural solutions. Any initiative that doesn't push for the structural solutions is just prolonging the status quo.

Then when you factor the human/political element it's even worse. These cameras create real frustration and resentment among a large portion of the population. These are just people trying to work and access important services. We want them to do it without driving, and if they do drive they should be driving on streets and roads instead of unsafe stroads. When we urbanists push for cameras instead of structural reforms, then urbanism will will get lumped into that frustration and we get more carbrained politicians that make the situation worse for everyone not in an SUV.

I think we both agree on the end goal, so I don't really want to argue, I'm just afraid that this path leads us to a worse outcome once you factor in human emotions and politics.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I appreciate your comment, but disagree with some of your stats/facts.

Revenue from traffic cameras goes to mostly the police, not for making roads safer. Revenue from all of Ontario goes to the City not the police. A quick scan of a few municipalities FAQ indicates the same. Brampton, [Barrie](https://www.barrie.ca/services-payments/transportation-parking/traffic-control/speed-limits-enforcement. That funding is actually used to implement other traffic calming measures to further help reduce accidents and speeding.

As far as safety goes, the data I’ve seen shows they initially work, then only for about 100m. Red light cameras are the same, they create rear end collisions due to unsafe breaking from someone who should have used the orange light, but was afraid of a ticket.

Barrie's data indicates otherwise, showing a tick up in speed after ASE is removed, but still below the pre-ASE speeds. . I can't find the staff report detailing exactly what their survey data was, but thats still a serious reduction - generally enough to get us almost to the 45% survival rate.

CAA's data shows that driver behaviour IS changing, which is good news and provides hope that this might actually improve behaviour.

If you have any other recent data that shows otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it - everything I've seen and was taught in school is that speeding is a behavioural habit, and ticketing/consequences are the easiest method to change that habit. It takes time, but habits can change.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)