this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
351 points (98.9% liked)

News

23284 readers
4130 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm speaking from a place of "I drive through Lindale and see this with my own eyes".

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

so we agree its a good thing?

from your source:

Last year, 17,300 speeding camera tickets were issued in Linndale — 3,319 fewer than in 2021, according to reports from the Parma Municipal Court.

or are you arguing speeding in a 25mph zone is a good thing?

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you not reading what I said? It doesn't make the area safer. Receiving a ticket WEEKS after the fact does nothing to prevent or curtail the dangerous behavior WHEN IT IS OCCURRING. And it doesn't make the actual street any safer because people slow down for that 100yd stretch then speed back up. Never mind the fact that a huge number of the tickets go straight into the trash.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

wouldn't a decrease in tickets imply it is having an effect though?

and isn't slowing down in a dangerous area to speed a provable effect of its success?

isn't someone modifying their behavior after the fact better than not modifying it at all?

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or maybe the decrease in tickets is because of the giant billboard a local smoke shop erected saying "there's a speed trap here."

Dude, just admit that this speed camera is a blatant cash grab.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ive admitted it three or four times. So for clarity, again, yes it is predicated on money. Yes, it is a cash grab. Yes it is a tax. It is a tax grab, it is a cash tax. It is a cash grab. I personally feel the term "cash grab" is a little loaded emotionally and isn't necessarily the best and most accurate way to describe it. But it seems you care a great deal about me saying the words, so I have said them. it is a cash grab.

All transactions are a cash grab. Name something that isn't. I have said from the start that the "cash grab" "tax" etc is part of the deterrent, but, to me, at least, that is better than death.

Furthermore - cops issuing tickets is a cash grab. Cops arresting people and them going to court and getting fined is a cash grab. Forfeiting your car is a cash grab. Paying to attend remedial driving school is a cash grab. We live in a capitalist society, everything is a cash grab.

I have from the start said that prevention (the cash grab) is part of the desired outcome, it is in my original comment. It is good to fine people who do bad things because it makes them do it less- as evinced by the sources I have provided - and it helps repay the cost of their antisocial behavior back to society.

Now that we are very clear that we both agree

  1. it is a cash grab

  2. why I think that cash grab is a good thing

  3. that the good thing is the decrease in speeding

I am curious to hear why you think the cash grab - or to use my preferred nomenclature - a deterrent - is a fate worse than death?

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you read anything I've been writing? It is does not deter speeding. Outside of the 100 yards the camera it's business as usual. People receive tickets AFTER THE FACT. It would be more effective to have actual police enforcing limits ON THE SPOT. They do not care about safety, they are literally just trying to generate money for themselves and their cronies.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"it does not deterrent speeding"

according to the facts I sourced above, it does.

according to your unsourced opinion with nothing to back it up except that you "live near there" - it doesn't. I'll change my opinion when you can provide some facts like I did. (although I retain the right to scrutinize and offer my opinion on those facts).

it would be more effective... to enforce... on the spot

I disagree. You can enforce for every car with a camera, you can enforce 1 car with a person in another car - so by what metrics of efficacy are you holding this to? It seems like you're saying it's better to stop one person now than it is to stop thousands of people regularly.

If they don't care about safety, why is the person who doesn't care about safety better in person, with a gun, giving chase in a dangerous location?

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If a person is speeding and unknowingly gets tagged by a speed camera, it doesn't stop their speeding at the time. Hence it is not about safety.

If someone is speeding then slows down just long enough to avoid getting tagged by the speed camera, then resumes speeding, it is not about safety.

If the tickets can be literally thrown in the garbage without a second thought and the issuing party can't do a thing about it, it is not about safety.

There are better ways to make people aware of their driving habits. A shitty unmanned speed camera is not one of those ways.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a) only true if not signposted, and I specifically said it should be. isn't cops stopping you also only a deterrent if you get caught at that time? if a camera is there permanently you know not to speed after getting caught, if a cop is there on Monday they might not be on Tuesday

b) we disagree, that's exactly what safety is to me. I don't wear a condom if I'm not having sex, and you don't need to slow down if you're in an area where you can go fast — are you assuming I mean to make people slow down on the freeway? i am not, i am talking about accident prone areas where slowing down would save lives

c) so don't make the tickets be able to be thrown in the garbage?

d) what are they, then?

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can just admit that you want intrusive observation that skips due process because it fits the narrative you want to force on everyone else.

It's okay.

I personally think it's a terrible idea.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

this is what's known as a "straw man" — you used words I didn't to make a point I hadn't and then criticize the point you made up.

It's considered impolite.

[–] lingh0e@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A government agency is using a flimsy excuse to extort money from it's citizens, accusing people of a crime without due process... and you've made it clear that you think it's a worthy trade off for the illusion of safer roads.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I think you're drastically blowing speeding fines out of proportion and severely underestimating the cost and impact of bad driving.