cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/44712264
These up-eds usually complain that photo radar would be fine if the radar worked properly. This one doesn’t even do that. It just complains that speed limits aren’t fair and now drivers have to change their behavior. jfc
It is true that drivers can avoid such tickets by sticking to the posted speed limits, but it is also true that drivers are hardly ever expected to strictly observe those limits.
…
It’s like the generally accepted contract between drivers and police – just drive at a reasonable speed and you’ll be fine – has been broken.
Yeah, these are all narcissist arguments. The only argument that should be made is the fact they don’t actually reduce accidents, fatalities, or make the roads any safer (the fixed kinds, at least).
Cool, except this article has citations that dispute your uncited ‘facts’
You are absolutely going to need some peer review or corroborating reference for an article produced and published by an organisation who’s entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article.
That’s “A study on how smoking does not cause lung cancer posted on the Marlboro website” levels of suspected bias.
It’s probably legit, but it looks suspicious.
How’s about you rebut it, your way, first, m’kay.
You’re prolly legit, but you’re sus.
Ah, I see, weak citation then deflection.
That gives a pretty accurate understanding of what to expect from a conversation with you.
If you don’t understand that questioning the impartiality of a source is a rebuttal I’m not sure there’s much else for us to discuss.
No need to further rebut weak citations, have fun with your delusions.
Are you Bell, or Howell? Mirror salesperson?
What about peer reviewed articles showing that photo radars don’t work? Published by organization who’s entire success premise is based on a particular outcome to said article of course. That would also be interesting to see.
i’d imagine they exist and would be equally if not more suspicious because fiscal benefit tends to bring a higher likelihood of shenanigans.
By “don’t work”, do you mean the physical camera’s are unreliable and malfunction or that they don’t work as a measure to reduce speeding and increase safety? both ?
Reduce speeding and increase safety of course.
Unobvious enough that i had to ask for clarification, but that could just be me.
Here is the equivalent of the other side :
https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/the-latest-data-shows-speed-cameras-dont-save-lives
I’m assuming you’re looking at the title and that it’s from a website called “carexpert” and assuming that it’s not entirely unbiased.
As well you should be.
I’m not espousing centrism, i’m expecting some basic citation vetting.
Yeah, I’m admittedly going off mainstream media talking points from 15-20 years ago, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have been proven otherwise.
There’s a strong financial incentive to falsify the stats in their favor though, where there simply isn’t for the opposite.
In other words: “there are no facts to dispute the use of speed camera”
Agreed.