258
Fuck speed cameras they are all 100 percent scams so yes they are not important to safety at all. Strictly a money making venture usually ran by a private company where the city does not even benefit from the funds.
Yeah but it's rather curious that this admin would do away with such an easy money making scheme. Something tells me they are going to replace them with something worse
I'm wondering if killing speed cameras might be related to contracting with Flock, and them not wanting other types of cameras to potentially cut into their business?
A - It doesn't make money for Trump himself so he doesn't care, and B - Republicans who get automated tickets from speed cameras can't get out of it by saying, "Do you know who I am?!"
Agreed it’s odd. seems like the ideal scam that they would exploit further. I guess a broken clock is still right twice a day though!
A lot of the most dangerous roads are in... surprise surprise... lower income areas that tend to have a greater proportion of minorities. And traffic death disproportionally affects non rich/white demographics. Despite what people love to parrot, speed enforcement (yes even cameras) increases safety and reduce deaths. Cameras work, and are much cheaper than actual infrastructure investment. So it's no surprise this admin wants to do something vaguely muh freedom that proportionally harms poor/brown people more. Bonus points if your average chode would assume cameras are DEI, which seems likely. We already have something worse - flock.
Half-assed bike lanes are horrible for safety though. Ones that put you one foot away from semis, that are full of trash and mud where one slip will send you into traffic, or that end randomly and abruptly or suddenly turn 1 foot wide, and drivers unconsciously will drive into the already tiny lane without slowing down or get blown into it by a gust of wind. Going in a car lane is much safer since there's more distance between you and cars and they will usually move into the other lane to pass. Personally I feel a lot safer on a 6 lane high traffic road with no bike lane than a smaller road with a shitty bike lane.
Conservatives are so fucking dumb
This will lead to cyclist deaths, and worse (for Conservatives) more bikes having to be on the road with cars
No matter how car centric they make the country, cars will never be the only form of transportation that exists
Speed cameras are used more for income than safety, but yeah, the rest of them not being recommended is pretty bad.
My state recently installed speed cameras in work zones. Some areas make sense but in one area they had something like 60k fines issues which amounted to millions of dollars. 2 things were discovered: the cameras were extremely sensitive, some drivers recorded their speeds at 43mph but were fined for 46mph. Then most of the money went to a company in NJ, our state (WA) got like 15% of the loot.
Seems most of these speed cameras are predatory and scams.
Scameras
What they do here (not the USA obviously) is subtract the uncertainty of the speed camera from your measured velocity. So for example, the camera might record you driving at 80 km/h, but you would be fined as if you were driving 75 km/h (precise numbers may differ).
The odometer of cars is (at least here) actually calibrated upward. So it would show (for example) 120 km/h when you're actually driving 115 km/h.
There's a trick that not many people seem to know about that you can do to avoid speeding tickets. Drive at 40 mph or less.
The limit was 45... So no, grandma we will not drive at 40.
That's understandable. If you drove at or slightly under the speed limit you might actually burst into flames or your dick might fall off or something. It's not worth it. Keep on speeding and getting them tickets and moaning about it like a spoilt kid.
Drive 40 and the camera will clock you at 43 and you get fined.
I won't be in favor of traffic camera enforcement until it's shown that they are safe, reliable, and trustworthy. Red light cameras often have unsafe light timing, for example. A speed camera should have a margin of error. And speed should be controlled by road design, not signage.
And most importantly, profits should go to municipality, not in private hands.
SHE'S A WITCH
Speed cameras do reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities, ~20% reduction in a lot of cases. If they also generate income from dangerous drivers is that a bad thing?
Speed cameras help reduce speed. It's undeniable.
Some places will put speed cams in places with recently reduced speed limits (sometimes lower than the road should be) and would be used to generate income. Some highway speed traps are notorious for this.
Both things can be true.
The last time speed cameras went up in my area, there was an increase in accidents overall despite an unrelated reduction in traffic volume (this was during the gas price spike under Bush). They were taken down as soon as they found out all the money was going to the vendor and the local government was losing money on each ticket.
The same logic applies to cops enforcing the speed limit, some cities will put them in a speed trap to collect revenue, that doesn't mean all cops enforcing speed limits are a scam for revenue or that we shouldn't use them.
And that is the alternative to speed cameras, more expensive, more discriminating, more dangerous cops enforcing speed instead, because speed has to be enforced or people will die or get seriously injured if we don't.
The same logic applies to cops enforcing the speed limit, some cities will put them in a speed trap to collect revenue, that doesn't mean all cops enforcing speed limits are a scam for revenue or that we shouldn't use them.
Yes. I didn't say all X that enforce speed limits are scams. In fact, I said both things can be true.
I agree that speed cams are better than more cops.
That doesn't change the fact that some jurisdictions will use them not to improve safety, but for income generation.
I wish they mentioned whether the sites included posted warnings of the presence of cameras, or real-time driver speed on digital signs. My gut says those cause a bigger and more consistent reduction than cameras themselves.
And if the signage is inconsistent it would be a big confounding factor
I'm sure it depends entirely upon implementation and placement. The cities I've been in that used them had only a few, and everyone knew where they were. The driving behavior just outside of the camera's reach was made worse than it would be without them.
I wonder how the 20% compares to having LEOs that do actual traffic enforcement, where a human witnesses the violation and physically writes the ticket.
I'm actually glad they're illegal where I'm at currently. It seems to have a chilling effect on the local surveillance state in general, plus we get to interact with our accuser and, if necessary, appeal much more easily than in places which contract out for autonomous enforcement.
I was thinking more along the lines of the moveable rigs with cameras they set up that tell you your speed.
They are actually owned by the municipalities rather than the third-party fine machines you’re thinking about.
Good! I hate.. checks notes. Things that keep cyclists out of my way?
They'd say it should be a car lane or parking.
USA is heading straight into the dark ages, with AI and robots.
May god help the world.
We should make trump ride a bike. Up one of those busy streets with a painted lane and double parked cars.
Something like that should be required for all drivers
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
258 points (100.0% liked)
News
38405 readers
1417 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS