hoping this catches on, pretty please CA…
i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.
hoping this catches on, pretty please CA…
i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.
Most studies find that cameras decrease accident rates: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract
Theoretically, it might cause drivers to drive more unpredictably, but I’d expect that those are typically rear-end colissions as drivers slam their brakes to try to avoid a ticket. Those are the safest type of traffic incident and I’d happily trade a pedestrian getting hit for a couple rear-endings.
In other words, you’re okay with creating more traffic accidents, as long as the victims belong to a group that you find acceptable.
In other words, I’m okay with causing minor financial burden to prevent serious injury or death.
Minor? The financial burden of your car getting totaled and your spine getting damaged can easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars! And that’s assuming the impact doesn’t kill or paralyze you.
Compared to getting hit by a car as a pedestrian? C’mon now.
Besides, it’s only fair for the person choosing to move at a speed that’s more likely to cause injury to accept the risk inherent in their action, rather than shifting it onto an innocent bystander whose chosen velocity is unlikely to do physical damage. (Not just cars. I feel this way about bikes too. Walking is the standard, if you’re going faster on purpose, you bear responsibility for that.)