I’d argue that’s fundamentally a problem with car drivers, not with the lack of surveillance, but I get your point. People do have a freedom not to crushed by traffic, and it sort of outweighs others’ freedom not to be caught on camera while crushing others with their cars.
Comment on 10 Commandmends for a digital age
Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I take argument with #5 as a concept.
My region is against speed and red light cameras out of freedom and privacy arguments; so people get slaughtered by cars instead.
Fine for selfhosting though.
halm@leminal.space 11 months ago
Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Drivers and road design.
haui_lemmy@lemmy.giftedmc.com 11 months ago
I agree. The argument would be good against always-on cameras though. I dont see an argument against red light cams.
Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Studies show red light cameras don’t decrease accident rates in the intersections they’re installed at. Furthermore, some municipalities have started doing things like varying timing of the light cycle to get more people running red lights for the increased revenue. These cameras haven’t been shown to decrease accident or injury/fatality rates anywhere they’re installed. If you’re against people being slaughtered by cars, it seems you should be against red light cameras since they don’t do any good and have the potential to make things worse.
Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 11 months ago
How do you figure? Red light cameras decrease frequency and severity of crashed at signalized intersections. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46552
There is some increase in rear ended, but those are much less severe than right angle or pedestrian collisions.
Cities adjusting the dilemma zone, or increasing speed limit; is a problem with revenue usage of red light cameras; and revenues should be going to victim funds. It also seems to be a uniquely USA problem? That could be a taxation and funding source issue.