this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
989 points (93.2% liked)
memes
18231 readers
3286 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Photo enforcement cameras are problematic for several reasons.
A) It has been shown that yellow lights with such cameras are very often set to a yellow duration briefer than generally accepted engineering practices to increase revenue *1
B) They discourage a rare misbehavior, actually running red lights, whilst causing another to become common. That is slamming on the brakes even when it isn't safe to stop. Exacerbated by A. Better slam on the brakes when it flicks yellow even if you are way too close to reasonably stop whilst going only the speed limit.
People who are caught up by it are almost always those who found themselves a bit too far into the intersection to safely stop. EG those who cross the threshold right as it is changing. There is for reasons of safety a few seconds between one light turning red and another green. At 30 mph (44 feet per second) someone will fully clear a 40 foot intersection in less than a second. That is to say the only people you catch aren't those who would have collided.
They are those
C) Most of the money goes to the contractor who owns the cameras. Essentially you are letting a private company prey on your citizens as long as government gets to keep the scraps.
*1 https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/
I'm not arguing for police states and surveillance, but this is wrong:
Nearly half of all motor accidents are at intersections. It's estimated there are annually a quarter million red light running accidents, and somewhere between 700 - 1000 fatalities yearly from these accidents. I suppose you could argue that with the number of deaths yearly from auto accidents (30,000 - 40,000 in the US) that a thousand "isn't that much" but I feel like if a thousand people a year died to anything else we would be up in arms and demanding something be done about it.
Red light cameras have been demonstrated to reduce crashes at intersections, actual studies and data, so maybe check for all sources on all angles of a problem. The reduction isn't drastic but it is there. It shows that there are ARE things that can be done about intersection accidents, but whether or not it's cameras is a separate debate. I don't think the harm of illicit data collection or the instances of some cities using corrupt methods for collecting funds outweighs the lives saved, but I guess you can ask the families of people who died how they feel.
I am open to better ideas for reducing auto accidents but everyone seems pretty stuck on the idea that we should have the freedom to pilot thousands of pounds of steel as fast as we can as a method for compensating for bad time management, and I think it's safe to say that a LOT of the opposition to automated methods for managing traffic laws irritates people because they don't feel like they have a way to "get away" with breaking the rules.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10487344/
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
I'll add one more. They subvert our right to a trial and seeing our accuser. The fines are all supposed to be viewed by some sort of officer that is supposed to show up if you challenge the ticket. The only one I've received didn't have any info on how to challenge it. It was like a bill that obfuscated my right to a trial. Guilt is assumed and forgiveness is ignored. 28 in a school zone in an unfamiliar city, instant fine with no "oops I fucked up" recourse.
Crazy how car drivers all think they deserve one free pass for dangerous driving.
Pay more attention.
That aside, it's bullshit that they allegedly made it difficult for you to understand how to take the matter to court. In all fairness I'm not sure I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, considering you missed the school zone as well.
In some cases you don't actually have an automatic court date as one would have with a normal officer issued ticket.. This is the same with parking enforcement you can receive a ticket that if you don't pay you lose your license but they can simply ignore you and if you want to fight it you have to front a few grand to a lawyer to fight it and initiate a lawsuit or represent yourself and commit to losing multiple days pay and risk your job which will not understand.
This is always a hard conversation to have. There are drivers on the road who want everyone to be safe, and do their best to function in our bad infrastructure. I try to be one of them, partially because I commuted on a bike and public transit for a long time. I did miss the sign in this instance, it was one of those "when present" signs that doesn't have lights.
Personally I want more fines for actually dangerous driving. Its hard to quantify how much dumb shit I've seen while driving as much as I do. Watching TV while driving should be straight to the drunk tank and yet i see it every day.
None of these are actual problems with red light cameras, and actually people run red lights all the damn time.
Shortening yellow lights to cause people to unintentionally run them, people slamming on the brakes and causing accidents, and a monetary transfer between citizens and a private company are not problem?
....with red light cameras.
Correct. It is a different problem.
You clearly don't live in and never been to my country (Portugal, which in my personal experience of driving all over Europe has some of the worst driving in the continent) if you think running red-lights is a rare behavior.
Around here, were there are no zero red-light cameras that I know of (unlike other countries in Europe I lived in), it's literally the norm for people to run the red-light for about 30 seconds after it has switched over from yellow. There's even a joke around here that "Green means Go, Red means Stop and Yellow means Accelerate". You will literally get honked at by the person behind you if when you see the yellow light you slow down so as not to run a red-light.
Curiously, in the other countries in Europe I lived in which did have red-light cameras, such behavior was incredibly rare.
Even more entertaining, when I first moved out of Portugal as a young adult I went with that very same behavior trained and not soon after I started driving in my new country of residence (which was The Netherlands) I almost immediately got a €50 fine for running a red light in that way and getting caught by a camera, tried to dispute it, got told "Red is red, it doesn't mater if it has been red for 1 second or 1 minute", paid the fine, learned my lesson and never did it again. Whilst anecdotal, it's none the less one data point of red-light cameras working at making people change their habits.
In The Netherlands they weren't shorting the yellow light times, but that's because unlike in the US were the Law and Politics are a total shit-show, the Dutch actually have specified in the law the minimum time period for the yellow light (you know, because they have politicians which are at least somewhat competent and not on the take) and if city halls had it lower than that all of their red-light fines would end up thrown out in court if it was ever found out (and taking them to court over there is also way cheaper than in the US) same as parking fines get thrown out if the "no-parking" sign isn't properly visible.
You see, the problem you have pointed out is not a problem with red-light cameras, it's a problem with the Law over there, so it's the Law that needs fixing not the red-light cameras.
You appear to be drawing a conclusion based on your experience with Portugal and elsewhere in Europe but America has no red light cameras at the majority of intersections and areas with and without and areas that have them and haven't before. In general this correlation doesn't appear to be so universal as you suppose or indeed hold. The citizens of one city or state can "fix" banning red light cameras in theory in many places wherein the citizens can pass initiatives. Those without means regulating those with them just doesn't work in America. America is a country firmly for the rich.
Then create and enforce laws that require a given yellow light timer for a given speed.
Guess you'd better leave a safe stopping distance between you and the car ahead of you. If you can't stop quickly enough to not rear-end someone slamming on their brakes, you're following too closely. Kids and animals run into the street all the time.
You and others like you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Red light cameras encourage perverse incentives whilst not actually meaningfully improving safety. There isn't any "good" worth protecting.
In real conditions there is often a maximum distance that one can maintain between cars as giving a big enough gap will cause it to be filled by another car. Also people have both a minimum reaction time and stopping distance that is greater than the practical distance that exists in real traffic. Slamming on your brakes too abruptly is likely to cause accidents in real situations with real drivers with real reaction times.