It’s less a problem with racial profiling and more a problem with it being a poverty-tax.
Enforcing a flat-rate fee structure with speed cameras disproportionately hurts low-income drivers (who are already economically unstable), and allocating state/city funding toward road maintenance instead of public transit infrastructure pushes people into a loop of auto costs-> traffic fines -> loss of work -> more financial insecurity, ect.
True enough: reducing officer interactions is a good thing, but those cops end up spending that saved time escalating other non-violent interactions instead. If that’s your goal, you should be de-funding and reforming law enforcement, not automating fine collection.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I don’t disagree, but I also think speeding is the least dangerous thing that happens on the road.
Where are the cameras catching tailgaters, people who don’t signal, people cutting others off, people cruising in the left and not passing, people blatantly running stop signs, people texting or doing makeup?
These behaviors are all far more dangerous.
Speeding is a psychological problem. You can’t take a four-lane, straight, flat, state highwayswith few cross-roads, and all of a sudden it’s a 20MPH zone because there’s a school on it (and an elevated crosswalk at that), then throw a camera on it and make a money generating machine.
I mean, you can…Rhode Island does it. At least in the poorer neighborhoods. They don’t do it in the nice neighborhoods (well, most of them…I guess Blackstone Blvd is like the one exception). But it’s not really doing anything but pissing people off.
vividspecter@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You’re right that streets should be designed such that low speeds feel inevitable and not something you have to think about, and that they should serve one purpose and not two (no stroads). And highways should completely bypass cities, because the idea that they should cut through them is just absurd.
The technology to do this is more challenging then detecting speeding. Red-light cameras are also very common, because they are relatively easy to implement. I believe there is some tech for texting while driving at least, but I’m not sure how automated it is.
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Force = Mass times Acceleration.
Allero@lemmy.today 1 month ago
As pointed out already, acceleration here is massive, as collision takes split seconds.
A more useful formula is: F=m*∆V^2/2, where F is the force, m is mass, ∆V is speed difference (essentially your entire speed if you’re gonna hit the wall, and that’s very likely).
Notice that speed in this formula is squared, so doubling the speed results in four times the impact.
22% higher speed leads to 50% higher impact.
41% higher speed doubles the impact energy.
Etc. etc.
Also, mass of your car, even though it’s not squared, impacts the result greatly. Twice as heavy car will exert twice the energy at the same speed.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Sure. But speeding doesn’t cause accidents nearly to the level of all of the other things.
Going slow is a great way to reduce damage. Artificially slowing down roads (by throwing up a camera and a sign and nothing more) is not.
Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Going the posted speed limit is not going slow.
Speed is a leading factor in collisions resulting in serious injuries and death.
frazorth@feddit.uk 1 month ago
This is a camera on a single lane road in the UK. They should be driving on the left.
Malfeasant@lemm.ee 1 month ago
You sure showed them…