We Need More Speed Cameras
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- The case for red light and speed cameras has been, and still is a point of contention when it comes to road safety. Today I share my perspective on the feasibility and ethics of using red light and speed cameras in an urban context.
Links;
visionzerovancouver.ca/
strongtowns.org/journal/2023/9/18/the-arguments-for-speed-cameras-and-why-they-dont-hold-up
Walkable City - Jeff Speck amzn.to/47G16qX
Chapters
----------------------------------------
0:00 The Case For Speed & Red Light Cameras
0:59 Do Red light cameras work
2:07 Vancouver city council
5:13 Are they ethical?
7:25 Conclusion
Do speed cameras work
Apparently over 70% of British Columbians support these cameras. Do you?
Yes. Although in London, Ontario.
Jeez, the carbrains are out in full force in this comment thread so far.
While street design is of utmost importance in slowing vehicles and protecting those otside cars, even the road design mecca of the Netherlands has these babies all over to catch the few people that don't respond to road design changes.
I most took transit in Netherlands, but driving there was a breeze. So much less aggression, much more predictable drivers, and everyone followed the laws for the most part. It was what I expect while driving. Not this mad max fucking garbage where I worry about dying after being hit multiple times by shitty drivers.
Edit: also, I subscribed because of this video! Love it!
I’d love to get access to some of those great resources you complied so that I can send them to the counsel people and city legislators in Buffalo, NY (and suburban cities). It’s a sort of ride at your own risk situation on our streets.
In my city, many drivers deliberately ignore the traffic light at the pedestrian crossing near my house. At the request of citizens, the city installed red light cameras. Drivers started obeying the traffic light because they knew about the camera.
Everyone was happy (drivers weren't paying fines so they didn't complain) until the city found out that this camera was losing them money and removed it. I don't understand this approach. The camera wasn't there to make a profit, it was there to increase safety and it clearly worked.
Governments and passing motions to do a study, name a more iconic duo
Very interesting video, especially your hot take on speed cameras being a tax. I live in Calgary, we have them too. I guess the main thing I don't like about them as a tax is that they are regressive. There's a big difference in the impact of a $50 photo radar ticket for someone who's a corporate big shot who makes $500k and thinks it's their divine right to drive as fast as they want, versus someone who's barely making ends meet and was driving fast so they could make enough Uber Eats deliveries to turn a profit that day. Unfortunately, Canadian municipalities don't seem to have any progressive taxation tools available to them... property tax is often an inequitable revenue generation tool as well. Maybe photo radar is a decent pragmatic solution in the short term, provided the long-term goal is to improve street design to match the design speed to the complexity of the environment.
Yeah, though I'd still rather have something than nothing. And you can always start at $50 then raise it later based on the value of the vehicle.
@@jaro6985 You're right, it's better to have something that nothing. Photo radar deployed in an environment where the design speed matches the speed limit is probably fine after all. I'd really like the fines to be equitable though, and I'm not sure the value of a vehicle is a good proxy for the ability of its owner to pay a ticket. There's a city councillor in Saanich who's been trying to make income-based speeding fines a thing. That sounds like an interesting approach, albeit a politically challenging one to implement.
True. Montague had an anecdote about a driver he encountered who had a lot of tickets but didn't care because it was peanuts to him. Boyle mentioned a solution might be tickets based on salary like in Finland.
@@nicthedoor It seems I'm naive but i thought tickets based on income were the standard everywhere, but I guess that isn't the case outside northern Europe?
@@axelkvarnstrom1826 It was suggested by Boyle in the meeting, but no, it isn't a thing here sadly.
In Quebec City at an intersection on autoroute Dufferin Montmorency. The freeway with an intersection for some reason goes from 100 to 70 @ the intersection to 100 again.(catastrophically bad road design) there was a deadly collision. The govt responded not by fixing the intersection but putting up a speed camera on ONE side of the freeway that made millions of dollars in like the first couple weeks. They said it was to prevent accidents like that from ever happening again but it was a disgusting excuse to make a quick buck after the tragedy. I think that's an unethical speed cam implementation.
great video as usual.
I'm curious to know if you shoot all your B-roll and edit the video yourself? because that's a huge amount of effort from your part. Not to mention, research, script, screen cap.
Thank you.
I do use an asset website on occasion, like the guy singing in the car, but I do pretty much everything. That being said, It's a fun hobby.
Do you work in this field or just a totally unrelated interest?@@nicthedoor
There's no right to operate a vehicle in public space. Let's start there. Therefore the privilege granted to drivers requires them to obey the rules. Smdh at this "maybe the street is wrong" carbrained attitude. Are all forms of traffic included in "speed studies?" Or just the products of an industry that destroys 100 humans every day, just the USA, for the past 100 years? Not to mention the rest of the world, where the number is estimated at 3700 every day, totalling 1.35 million every year.
Are bicycles and pedestrians included in these "speed studies?"
The public right of way belongs to all people, not their vehicles.
Revenue is wonderful, especially when it's coming from dangerous operators.
Tax, my ass! It's a penalty for endangering society and it should go right in the general fund. Thanks!
What do engineers say about speed in a collision? Have we forgotten the exponential rise in the chances of fatality and serious injuries starting at 20mph?
Drivers should feel grateful they're even allowed to exceed 20 mph in our shared space! If I were king no vehicle would even be sold to the general public that exceeds 20 mph or was over the size of a smart car.
Unfollow
Public safety comes first.
It has been found in many areas in the US that the yellow light times have been shortened to collect more money. Can cameras make mistakes? Yes. Can red light cameras cause more crashes? Yes. Having a third party run the cameras cause the third party to want to make more money from more violations.
I don't get what you are saying about street design. Ideally, you want streets to be designed to be straight with and with lanes wide enough to leave enough of a margin for error to avoid collisions. I don't see why you would choose not to do that. Look at the Patullo bridge. It has lanes that are too narrow with a bend in middle. Look at how many collisions there are on that bridge. They closed down the centre lanes at night, so the one lane is wide enough to make driving across that bridge safer. Of course they cannot do that during the day due to traffic. Not sure what your ideal design of a road really should be. Current designs of our roads are limited in part to whatever space you have. That is going to be a constraint everywhere.
I think he might be making a distinction between 'streets' and 'roads' in the way that Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns does (he was mentioned near the end of the video). In that terminology, 'streets' are urban places where people live and work and shop and play, and should be designed to move cars slowly and in limited volume, for the safety and enjoyment of all street users, and the aesthetic, financial and environmental benefit of the place. On the other hand, a 'road' is intended to move motorized vehicles quickly and in high volume, and should be designed to be a less complex environment... no homes, no stores, controlled access, clear zones free from obstacles on the sides, etc. Roads are the things that should be straight-ish with wide-ish lanes and margin of error. What we have in a lot of places in Canada are 'stroads', which try to combine the functions of streets with those of roads and end up doing both poorly.
@@a2dsouza That is the first time I have ever heard the distinction between streets and roads. What about avenues, boulevards and ways? There are so many terms used to name roads throughout the city. Can people look at a picture of any street/road/avenue, etc. in Metro Vancouver and actually agree what it should be called? Maybe they can look at Highway 1 and agree it is a highway, but then there's Lougheed Highway through Vancouver and Burnaby where only parts may look like a highway.
@@GeneChiu What is a "street" and what is a "road" has little to do with what's written on the sign. That definition lies in the actual purpose of any particular thoroughfare.
A street as per strong towns "streets create a platform for capturing value. A properly designed street will maximize the value of the adjacent development pattern in ratio to the infrastructure investment within the public realm. To do this, auto traffic will be slow and will (equally) share space with other modes of transport, including pedestrians, bikers and transit alternatives."
Roads "a road is an efficient connection between two places. It is high speed and safe, which implies that it has limited access (intersections are inherently unsafe at high speeds) and highway geometries. It is essentially a replacement for the railroad which was, as its name suggests, a road on rails."
I do not support these cameras. I once was selling a pick up truck, which I was allowing test drives of to help sell it. I was extremely anxious that the people test driving might get me a ticket at a nearby red light camera intersection. If I did not allow test drives, I was not going to sell the vehicle. So reason number one why I don't like them is because they ticket the owner, and not the operator. Next, municipalities have been caught rigging the timing of traffic lights to increase the revenue generation of intersection cameras. Next, they are in effect putting the burden of correcting the mismatch between the setup of the intersection and the natural driving behaviour on the driver, instead of on the municipality to make the intersections themselves safer. We already know that narrowing lanes, adding curbs, etc changes driver behaviour, so why not do that? Lastly, on the topic of ethics, I think it is important to decouple it from outcome. For example, we could deploy rockets at all cars that are speeding and blow them up. But we don't do things like that. Forgive me for the hyperbole of that. Even though it costs money, I would much prefer that the police do this type of work, and that they prosecute 100% of people that have broken the law. I believe it would help create a culture of good driving, as it has social consequences. Anyway, great video.
the number of times where the owner is not the operator or household members is infinitesimally small. stupid take. more cameras. it is insanely expensive and a waste of all our tax money to hire more cops to write tickets. speed cameras everywhere. saving lives and making people feel safe comes first. and cameras are the most cost effective way to do that. as long as there are right turns on red. as long as there are stroads and otherwise poor roadway design there should be cameras.