• sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like some reddit brain would say “oh we’ll just enforce this digitally once everyone drives a self driving car”

    given how many times computers fuck up and just randomly turn off or some shit, I still think humans (some of them at least) are more dependable

    • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      15% is not a hard success rate to beat but. This isn’t dickriding self driving cars, that shit is never going to work without fucking everyone outside of a car over more, but that’s kind of the point, the answer to this problem is not cars (any version)

    • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Modern petrol cars contain lots of computers too.

      Automatic enforcement, with the right to override it recorded in the black box to be used as evidence in crash cases, is a perfectly reasonable idea. But inevitably there will be bugs, just as there are in self-driving cars (especially the often dangerous “semi-autonomous” vehicles).

      However there is a cheaper solution: Fixed, widespread speed cameras. Which right now are effectively banned in the UK, because the treasury confiscates the fines (local government pays the running costs, and therefore can’t afford to run any).

      While I understand there are usability issues, and design can help with that, if you’re not able to drive your ton of metal safely and legally you shouldn’t be driving it. If people expected to get caught, they’d drive slower.

      The bottom line is speed limits are the law. And lower speed limits reduce the number of serious injuries dramatically and help to push people onto public transport. Although with old cars they increase emissions slightly; with modern hybrids they reduce them.

        • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 In the UK, local councils pay for fixed speed cameras.

          Central government confiscates the fines.

          When this was introduced the vast majority of fixed speed cameras disappeared more or less overnight: Councils could not afford to run them without a revenue stream. Their budgets had been cut ~50% by that same government.

          The government justifies this by saying “the war on the motorist is over”.

          But it’s a funny kind of war. The fatalities are overwhelmingly caused by motorists.

            • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              @immibis @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Why not? Elected local governments should be able to fund the maintenance of fixed speed cameras out of the fines received.

              They can’t, which means, given enormous cuts in their budget largely the result of central government decisions, they could no longer afford to maintain speed cameras.

              As a result, more motorists drive at unsafe speeds, and people die.

              More speed cameras is a *GOOD* thing.

              I see absolutely nothing wrong with enforcement paying for itself in this case.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                My biggest issue with speed camera’s is the middleman corruption that follows them, and perverse incentives they create. Do cities make money on traffic lights? Are they removing them because they can’t make money on them? Why is it different for Speed Cameras?

                • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  @PowerCrazy They are removing them because they *LOSE* money on them.

                  They are, in the UK at least, not allowed to keep any of the money generated.

                  But they have to pay for the costs of running them.

                  And they can’t afford to because their budgets have been cut so far over the last 13 years of tory misrule that in many cases they can no longer provide basic services that they are legally obliged to provide.

                  Back when they could cover their costs, there were lots of speed cameras. Now there are very few. Because evil politicians, usually tories, have always sacrificed lives for political convenience.

                  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Surely Building/Maintaining roads and traffic signals isn’t free? The council has to pay the costs of running those? Why not remove/shut-down roads so they can avoid paying maintenance for them?

            • MatthewToad43@climatejustice.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              @gabriel @sooper_dooper_roofer @mondoman712 Because somehow drivers have decided that driving is a right in the same sense that freedom of association is a right.

              That any restriction on their ability to drive, that any monitoring of their driving in a public place, is somehow against civil liberties.

              That the law should be reinterpreted to suit them. That “causing death by dangerous driving” is somehow less serious than manslaughter (aka murder 3).

              Freedom to drive has never been a constitutional or human right. Certainly not in my country nor in the USA.

              Cars need to be regulated for the same reason that guns need to be regulated.