EDIT: since apparently a bunch of people woke up with the wrong foot this morning or forgot to check the group they’re in:

This is a joke. Do not steal or vandalize speed enforcement cameras (or anything else for that matter). That’s against the law and you will likely get arrested.

If you’re addicted to crack or any other drugs, please seek professional help.

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sorry but it’s a black and white thing in this case, r either you’re under the speed limit and not breaking the law or you’re over the speed limit and breaking the law.

    Also, tons of people object to speed camera tickets and win, the only difference is that there’s no officer there when the event happened to tell them “Say that to the judge if you’re not happy.”, the end result is the same.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Bullshit. You are allowed to cross examine your accuser which you can’t do for a camera. It is not the same. Random tech should not be judging humans for crimes.

    • Voyajer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      We also need to keep in mind the mechanism it is using to detect speed. If it uses radar it will need regular calibration. Handheld units for example are supposed to be spot checked before and after each shift with tuning forks and sent back to the manufacturer to be recalibrated every 6 months or so.

      Lidar and optical flow most likely have different requirements, but I am not as familiar with them.

      • PopMyCop@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Lidar is supposed to be checked like radar. You have a standardized distance and you check that the machine is exactly matching.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sorry but it’s a black and white thing in this case, r either you’re under the speed limit and not breaking the law or you’re over the speed limit and breaking the law.

      This isn’t actually true. It’s entirely possible to be breaking the law while driving under the speed limit: “driving too fast for conditions” is very much a thing.

      But that’s beside my point, which really was just that changing the design of the street to make people not want to speed in the first place is way more effective (and frankly, way less totalitarian) than punishing them after-the-fact for doing so.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        “Driving too fast for conditions” won’t be enforced by cameras, will still exist if the road is modified and is 100% subjective which is a problem speed cameras don’t have so you should be happy about that.

        It might be more effective, it’s still not possible to change all roads as quickly as speed cameras can be deployed.

        It’s also a very stupid argument, that’s like saying “If that person didn’t want me to steal from them they shouldn’t have left their car unlocked.” The rule is there, it’s your responsibility to respect it no matter what the road looks like. Both things need to be used in conjunction, roads need to be adapted to their limit but you need something to enforce the limits too.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        “unreasonably low”

        Eh… What? Car drivers can get fucked in this case, they don’t have a right to travel quickly, it’s a privilege.

        “Unreasonably high”

        Then a police officer there won’t change a thing and the road design won’t change.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          if it’s too low, good, drivers shouldn’t go fast. If it’s too high, fine, drivers can go fast.

          Eh … What?

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Never said it was fine, I said the issue lies elsewhere and the solutions we’re currently taking about aren’t the ones that will solve it.

            If the speed limit is too high it’s an administrative decision, they won’t change the road design because they decided to have a high speed limit, a speed camera or a police officer won’t charge people who are driving fast unless they’re going over the speed limit that’s already too high.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              So you consider the law to be the definition of safety?

              My question was intended to get you think about the fact that laws (and speed limits) are made by people, with all their flaws and biases, and they don’t always do a good job.

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Sorry but it’s a black and white thing in this case, r either you’re under the speed limit and not breaking the law or you’re over the speed limit and breaking the law.

                  Your words make it sound like you think the speed limit is some objective truth that cannot be questioned.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    It can be questioned, not enforcing them isn’t questioning them and won’t make them change, if people disagree with the speed limit somewhere they can complain to the authorities responsible, in the meantime is still the limit and you’re breaking the law by not respecting it. It’s the same thing with every laws and is the reason why when they change, criminals don’t suddenly get released from prison because the law they broke doesn’t exist anymore.

                    Ever heard of the social contract theory?

                    Heck, what if I believe that school zones are bullshit and want to do 50mph in them and it’s the kids responsibility to act safely? Would you defend my right to drive 50mph because you believe I have the right to question the speed limit in school zones this way or would you tell me to address the right people and live with the current limits until they’re changed?

    • IHasAHat@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      What would you prefer? That some people drive slightly over the speed limit? Or a spot where people suddenly slam on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket, endangering those who might be behind them with their sudden change of speed?

      Because the latter is what these devices tend to do.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Show me evidences that they increase accidents please, I’ve provided two sources showing they work in another comment, surely you can provide one that they cause accidents.