5 ms·

> And my god, the people who will go FAR over the limit right down your street where people are pushing prams, kids are walking along, etc. is astounding. 100%

by adav 8y ago

> And my god, the people who will go FAR over the limit right down your street where people are pushing prams, kids are walking along, etc. is astounding. 100%. However, the majority of cameras are placed on deserted countryside main roads and non-pedestrianised motorways/interstate type roads. More camera locations should be prioritised for protecting pedestrians.

TomK32 8y ago
Those cameras are not to protect pedestrians, they exist to enforce drivers to stick to the speed limit. Look at these charts. Speeding rural areas kill! Also, take a guess at what time SUVs became popular in urban areas. https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/fatalityfacts/roadway-and-environment https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/f...
- IshKebab 8y ago
  Very interesting tables! I'm not sure what you mean by "Speeding rural areas kill!" but the relevant table shows that the same proportion of deaths are speeding related in rural and urban locations.
- tomp 8y ago
  The point is, speed cameras are just a bad solution. At best, they're a passive aggressive way of exerting government control over citizens. At worst, they're a revenue-increasing mafia-protection-like tool. If you actually want to protect pedestrians, you build physical "traffic calming" obstacles like speed bumps or chicanes [1]. Switzerland is full of these, and they're very effective. There's really no good reason to have speed cameras (although red light cameras might be a better idea), especially on the motorway (Germany manages without motorway speed limits, so clearly they're not necessary to have a functioning society). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane#Traffic_calming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane#Traffic_calming
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    That is indeed the best solution. I'd love to have them everywhere.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Yes speed bumps are way more effective than cameras. Australia is full of them in sneaky places. It makes the driving experience quite stressful. The speed limits are sometimes ridiculously low and it’s like playing a game. Speed bumps/breakers are way more effective at slowing cars down. If you don’t slow, you get a big fat jolt and damage your shocks. I like driving in US much better.
Balero 8y ago
I have lived in a rural area that has one of these speed cameras. It's just before a surprisingly sharp turn. People do walk on this road, not many (there is no pavement/sidewalk, just grass). The hole in the hedge from the cars going through it has almost grown in! My personal pet idea for pedestrian areas, especially in suburbs, would be to close off one entrance to a road, making them a dead end, stopping them from being short cuts. Not much difference to the people living there, they can still park and access. But now there will be no through traffic.
- seszett 8y ago
  > close off one entrance to a road, making them a dead end, stopping them from being short cuts It work well, but it puts a lot of political pressure on the mayor for a while, until the people who used to go through the city adjust to the new plan. It often gets reverted after a small while.
DanBC 8y ago
In the UK cameras can only be placed in accident hot spots. They're still very unpopular.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Teen drives his hot hatch with 3 friends as passengers into lamp post by showing off his high speed handbrake turns. Accident figures peak. Council installs "safety" camera and lowers speed limit. Next year figures revert to mean. Council: "Aha! The lower limit and camera has cut accidents, we'll make it permanent". Net result: speed camera in middle of nowhere, on a dual carriageway, in isolated section of 40mph limit. Often on a bend. Goodbye 85th percentile rule in yet another spot. I can see why that's unpopular. Yet the spots that really should have cameras near schools, or in other spots around town, generally don't.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    "Goodbye 85th percentile rule " - is this bad? It's a flawed non-rule. In many places (including Ireland, where I live) the same roads where people drive are where you walk your dog or ride a bike - with no footpath. The 85th percentile guideline doesn't help them. Remember that roads were for walking (by humans, horses, etc) and drivers turned up and stole them.
    - slavak 8y ago
      I'm pretty confident horses, especially ones pulling carriages, aren't super safe for pedestrians either.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      It's a flawed rule in built up areas, and in situations like minor roads without pavement near a village, where you'd expect to see pedestrians, dog walkers, hikers etc. Many of those spots would benefit from a camera on nearing village outskirts and 30mph limit. Yet they normally don't have one. On dual carriageways, which is about the only location I ever feel annoyed by speed cameras, it's a fairly reasonable basis for setting limits. That's the situation you find reductions of limit, with associated speed camera, that are simply unexplainable from road conditions, and lack of sources of danger, risks such as built up areas etc.

by adav 8y ago

TomK32 8y ago

Those cameras are not to protect pedestrians, they exist to enforce drivers to stick to the speed limit. Look at these charts. Speeding rural areas kill! Also, take a guess at what time SUVs became popular in urban areas. https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/fatalityfacts/roadway-and-environment https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/roadway-and-environment/f...

IshKebab 8y ago
Very interesting tables! I'm not sure what you mean by "Speeding rural areas kill!" but the relevant table shows that the same proportion of deaths are speeding related in rural and urban locations.
tomp 8y ago
The point is, speed cameras are just a bad solution. At best, they're a passive aggressive way of exerting government control over citizens. At worst, they're a revenue-increasing mafia-protection-like tool. If you actually want to protect pedestrians, you build physical "traffic calming" obstacles like speed bumps or chicanes [1]. Switzerland is full of these, and they're very effective. There's really no good reason to have speed cameras (although red light cameras might be a better idea), especially on the motorway (Germany manages without motorway speed limits, so clearly they're not necessary to have a functioning society). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane#Traffic_calming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane#Traffic_calming
- CalRobert 8y ago
  That is indeed the best solution. I'd love to have them everywhere.
- nojvek 8y ago
  Yes speed bumps are way more effective than cameras. Australia is full of them in sneaky places. It makes the driving experience quite stressful. The speed limits are sometimes ridiculously low and it’s like playing a game. Speed bumps/breakers are way more effective at slowing cars down. If you don’t slow, you get a big fat jolt and damage your shocks. I like driving in US much better.

Balero 8y ago

I have lived in a rural area that has one of these speed cameras. It's just before a surprisingly sharp turn. People do walk on this road, not many (there is no pavement/sidewalk, just grass). The hole in the hedge from the cars going through it has almost grown in! My personal pet idea for pedestrian areas, especially in suburbs, would be to close off one entrance to a road, making them a dead end, stopping them from being short cuts. Not much difference to the people living there, they can still park and access. But now there will be no through traffic.

seszett 8y ago
> close off one entrance to a road, making them a dead end, stopping them from being short cuts It work well, but it puts a lot of political pressure on the mayor for a while, until the people who used to go through the city adjust to the new plan. It often gets reverted after a small while.

DanBC 8y ago

In the UK cameras can only be placed in accident hot spots. They're still very unpopular.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Teen drives his hot hatch with 3 friends as passengers into lamp post by showing off his high speed handbrake turns. Accident figures peak. Council installs "safety" camera and lowers speed limit. Next year figures revert to mean. Council: "Aha! The lower limit and camera has cut accidents, we'll make it permanent". Net result: speed camera in middle of nowhere, on a dual carriageway, in isolated section of 40mph limit. Often on a bend. Goodbye 85th percentile rule in yet another spot. I can see why that's unpopular. Yet the spots that really should have cameras near schools, or in other spots around town, generally don't.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  "Goodbye 85th percentile rule " - is this bad? It's a flawed non-rule. In many places (including Ireland, where I live) the same roads where people drive are where you walk your dog or ride a bike - with no footpath. The 85th percentile guideline doesn't help them. Remember that roads were for walking (by humans, horses, etc) and drivers turned up and stole them.
  - slavak 8y ago
    I'm pretty confident horses, especially ones pulling carriages, aren't super safe for pedestrians either.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It's a flawed rule in built up areas, and in situations like minor roads without pavement near a village, where you'd expect to see pedestrians, dog walkers, hikers etc. Many of those spots would benefit from a camera on nearing village outskirts and 30mph limit. Yet they normally don't have one. On dual carriageways, which is about the only location I ever feel annoyed by speed cameras, it's a fairly reasonable basis for setting limits. That's the situation you find reductions of limit, with associated speed camera, that are simply unexplainable from road conditions, and lack of sources of danger, risks such as built up areas etc.