Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
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.
They also can't testify in court, depriving accused speeders of their constitutional right to due process.
But back to your first claim: "gotta enforce speed limits:" No, we do not. Speeding is a symptom of a street that was designed wrong to begin with. The correct solution is to fix the design, not install a speed camera as some sort of big brother band-aid.
Edit: why do y'all apparently hate the idea of improving street design? As a former traffic engineer, I'm telling you that that's the only way to truly fix the problem of speeding. I don't get why that's controversial.
Sorry, but that is a gross misinterpretation. Drivers are not victims of an intrinsic speed devil that they cannot escape. They still choose to violate the speed limit in most cases.
What was done in these countries is to acknowledge, that physical design is more effective as enforcement, than the cop with a speed-meter.
Still the explicit intent is to enforce speed-limits, knowing that people would violate them if they could, but they can't because they would wreck their car. Still those people choose to violate and are responsible for their actions.
I gotta be honest; I don't understand what point you're trying to make. First you tell me I'm wrong that it's essential to fix the design of the street to facilitate the correct speed, then you agree with me that "physical design is more effective as enforcement," then you say that the risk of people wrecking their car effectively deters them from speeding, then you say they choose to speed anyway.
You say that speed limits shouldnt be enforced as they would be a "symptom" of poor road design. This abolishes the speeding drivers from their own responsibility for violating the traffic rules.
You misinterpret the design choices shown in the video as the opposite of "bad road design", therefore "good road design", which implies a generality. However these design choices are made solely and explicitly to enforce speed limits. They have disadvantages in other ways e.g. if you make spots where only one car can pass at a time, it makes traffic less efficient. These disadvantages wouldn't be needed if people would uphold the traffic rules by themselves.
Good design or bad design, many people will speed if they can get away with it. With a proper enforcement through speed cameras, and proper penalties for speeding, e.g. losing your licences for repeated offenses or having your vehicle impounded, could equally serve for enforcement. They are just more expensive, so making design choices is prefered by some countries.
But still people who speed chose to speed. They chose to violate the traffic rules and they chose to endanger other people and themselves. So speeding is never a "symptom" of road design. It is always a "symptom" of selfish assholes that should not be given the right to operate dangerous vehicles.
No, they're designed to discourage people from exceeding the design speed, which is different.
Jeez, it's not as if the vast majority of speeders are mustache-twirling villains doing it for the evulz who are incorrigible short of being punished by the law! They just think it's safe to be driving that speed because the overly-generous street design misleads them.
Look, here's the bottom line: the whole concept of a "speed limit" only exists in the first place because of a mismatch between the design speed and the speed people want to drive, which makes it unsafe. If you fix the geometry of the street to eliminate the mismatch such that the speed people want to drive at is safe, you don't need the limit anymore and can just fall back on "reasonable and prudent."
Y'all are acting like we need speed limits for their own sake, just to have something to enforce.
And there is disagree. We don't need speed limits for their own sake. They are the speed that is deemed appropriate in the area for a multitude of reason. Primarily safety, but also things like noise and emission reductions.
It is the same question of whether someone wants to uphold rules like right of way, or red lights. They have been implemented to order traffic in a way that is deemed beneficial. Anyone who deliberately violates speed limits is deliberately violating the rules that have been put in place to provide safety to everyone. subequently it is also people that are more likely to violate right of way and other rules.
Your argument again is to be apologetic for people deliberately violating the rules. Your idea of simply designing streets in such a way that everyone will drive safely doesnt work out. It is still individual actors with a highly subjective idea, of what it safe and what isnt. But traffic as a global system needs reliable actors, who can be predictable for other actors too. That is why we will always need a set of global rules, to which a speed limit belongs just as much.
I am all for designs like speed bumps to additionally discourage reckless driving. But being apologetic of people who are reckless and subsequently often killing or injuring people doesn't fly. Especially as there is still enough people who are not stopped from driving over chilren in front of schools, despite speed bumps and other measures. The only thing that works for these kind of people is to permanently remove them from operating motorized vehicles and to give them some time in prison to think about what they have done. being apologetic of them instead, encourages lax traffic laws and lax consequences for people who are injuring and killing other people in traffic.
I am particularly aggrevated at that, because in germany drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists are often given a slap on the wrist and allowed to drive again soon. This includes particularly elderly people who are clearly unfit to drive, but being a car nation and all that, it is apologized by the courts. But how do you design streets in such a way that it is impossible to drive on the wrong side of the road, which one elderly women did, killing two cyclists? How do you design the road in front of a school that an already convicted of traffic offenses mother doesnt slowly roll over a young girl on her way to school, smashing her under her SUV? You can't. It is simply impossible to design car traffic areas in a way that makes them safe by design.
You can only make them more or less safe. But it will always be necessary to identify and punish reckless drivers. And if necessary that means prison sentences and permanent exemption from driving. Being apologetic of them is in no way helping traffic safety.
No, that's what the design speed is. Speed limits are just a crutch to enforce the design speed when the engineers screwed up and the design fails to do it itself.
Your argument again is to be apologetic to incompetent engineers, which is way worse!
I know, from first-hand experience, that traffic engineers in the United States are systemically bad at a lot of what we do. A lot of the industry's standards of practice are outdated, misguided, or misapplied, and the whole profession needs reform. Often, the goals that we're trying to accomplish in our designs aren't even the correct goals to begin with.
And by the way: No. No, I am not, in any way, shape, or form, trying to excuse bad drivers. Never mind that you've strawmanned my argument to the point of unrecognizability; even if I did want to abolish speed limits like you seem to think I do, "reasonable and prudent" would still be a thing and it would still be possible to punish dangerous drivers!
Frankly, you're way the fuck out of line.
You clearly don't realize it, but in actual reality, attitudes like yours are part of the problem! Having speed limits divorced from design speeds breeds contempt for the law, which is why consequences are often so lax. Everybody speeds when the speed limit is set too low -- that's human nature whether you like it or not -- so of course even judges and juries who speed themselves won't think speeding is a big deal and will give offenders a slap on the wrist. By prioritizing enforcement of speed limits over fixing street design, you are actively trying to perpetuate that contempt.
I'm starting to think you're so bloodthirsty to punish people that you're willing to put more people at risk by accepting bad design just so you can manufacture more violators!
Now you are just making things up. At every point i said, i think design to enforce the speed limit is a good thing. But you are claiming it is good design by itself, when it is only necessary as design, because people intentionally violate the speed limit, what you are still trying to be apologetic for. You switching cause and effect around and you do that in order to apologize for people who willfully endanger other people.
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.
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.
Lidar is supposed to be checked like radar. You have a standardized distance and you check that the machine is exactly matching.
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.
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.
"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.
What if the speed limit is unreasonably high or low?
"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.
Eh .... What?
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.
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.
I don't know how you can come to that conclusion from my message.
Good day to you!
Your words make it sound like you think the speed limit is some objective truth that cannot be questioned.
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?
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.
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.
Not Just Bikes?
*checks link*yep, Not Just Bikes.Yeah, speeding is a symptom of poor infrastructure design. It means one of a few possibilities:
Or worse, incite a bunch of extra passing maneuvers, making the road less safe.
Isn't that part of "you piss off everyone else on the road?"
No. Although they often go hand-in-hand, it is possible to either piss people off without them doing anything in response or to incite people to feel the need to pass you without them getting mad about it.
I'm sure it varies by area.
Where I live they install speed cameras in residential areas, school zones, and bus routes. They also only trigger when you are going 12 or more over the limit, and the highest speed limit I've seen with one these was 45mph, 35mph during school times. They also have an officer review and sign the citation, it is a flat fee, and no points. If needed, the officer who reviews will testify in court.
If someone is going 12+ over on school zones, school bus routes, and residential neighborhoods, then they deserve their fine.
They are illegal in my state
I'm a big fan of NJB (shout out to [email protected]), but I'm not going to argue against speed cameras. That's ridiculous. Yes, if I have to choose one or the other I'll take the better road design. But even with good road design, some people will choose to be dicks because they can, or they see it as a challenge or some shit. And speed cameras can be implemented right now, whereas better road design waits (even in the Netherlands!) until that street is next due for repaving.
I don't find improving road safety through intelligent engineering controversial, I think blaming the street design instead of the idiot deciding to speed through it is controversial. In the end it is the driver who accelerated, not the road engineer.
In fact I actually like how much attention has been brought over the past years to road design. I've always been scared of cars.
I think people are intuitively understanding that it's not really a possibility in a country as large as America. There are only 139,000 km of public roads in the Netherlands, compared to 6,743,151 km of roads in America. We also have different types of traffic compared to the Netherlands, more large vehicles and people without access to public transportation for daily commutes. Compounding all this with the fact that the federal government has no control of how most of these roads are built....... It's understandable why people don't see this as realistic option.
Their cynical intuition is wrong, though, and the "large country" argument in particular falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. So what if we have more roads? We have commensurately more traffic engineers, too! There is no excuse not to design properly.
Anyway, NJB has an entire video debunking that, so I'm just going to cite it instead of wasting my time arguing the point myself.
Vehicle size is irrelevant. Lack of access to public transportation is indeed a problem; however, in general "we shouldn't fix problem A because we also have problem B" is not a valid argument. It just means you should fix problems A and B.
Sigh... look, you're not wrong to argue that that's a popular perception; however, that's much more a consequence of the shitty state of civics education than it is an accurate description of reality. There's a bunch of different ways the Federal government exerts control, including things like taxation and funding (including for state- and local-maintained roads in a lot of cases, not just U.S. Highways) and collaboration between the FHWA (government) and AASHTO (industry) on design standards. It's more complicated than just a unitary central government dictating things, but rest assured, roads are designed in a relatively standardized way nationwide.
I think we're having a problem determining the difference of what is possible and what should be possible. Your argument is ignoring the most important aspect of any public project. There isn't enough political will in this country to pass universal healthcare, something that would end up saving the country billions of dollars. In what world do you think American politicians are going to replace 4 million miles of working roads?
I don't have the time ATM to watch this, I'll give it a try after work. However, I doubt they're going to be able to explain how they would get through the gridlock of our current government.
Traffic congestion won't improve unless we improve public transportation. It doesn't matter how well you build the roads, unless there is an alternative to driving there will be too many people on the roads. My argument is if we have to solve problem B before we work on problem A, there is no real reason to address problem A.
I think we're just just getting into sematics now. Yes there is somewhat of a standardization of roads, but that does not mean they have the power to unilaterally create a new standard in which they could enforce with the power of the purse.
Your argument is ignoring the magnitude of funding and state and federal cooperation that would be required to revamp the entire transportation network of a huge country. Even if you could get a bill passed through our current Congress, how much money would it take, how much time?
Do I think we should be designing walkable cities with ample public transportation, of course. Do I think any politician in America would actually care about that......? No.
We do have the political will in this country for universal healthcare, or, at least, most people, a majority, think it would be a good idea. it's just I guess up to how you define "political will", because we can have a majority that think we should have it, and then still not be able to get it even with popular support because the american government just straight up sucks and has bad voting systems and gerrymandering and even at the local level most of them are awful and are victims of circumstance of the presiding state and federal government. So that's just kinda. I dunno. It sucks.
I always find it very strange how this shit comes up, though, right, basically as nihilism. I don't think that guy's point was to try and convince you to like, go out an canvas for better road conditions, his point was just to convince you that your arguments and causes were wrong and that you should be thinking about road design differently, mostly in that it's a deliberate decision, and a bad decision. If you look at NJB, the guy who made that video, he's an omega doomer that doesn't really think progress will be made towards good urbanism within like, two generations, so he moved to amsterdam to escape it, basically. He's also a doomer.
The point wasn't to convince anyone to be an activist for anything, because that's a pretty rare person that's gonna be able to do that, the point is just that, the next time it comes around that the city has to do road maintenance, and they have a couple different options for proposals on how they might improve things, or if they will improve things, or if they'll just leave things to rot, you can vote to make them better and it will take like 5 minutes cause someone talked about this shit previously.
Which, was the other point I was gonna make. We've just had a big new infrastructure bill passed and new passenger rail funding, and new amtrak proposals, and even though it's not enough we're seeing progress on that front. And more than that, at the local level, things don't happen all at once with federal funding projects. They happen by degrees. You change the local standards, zoning regulations, so on, you know, shit you can precisely do because most politicians don't give a shit about it, or shouldn't right, if they turn it into a political issue where they're like "we're fighting the war on cars" with that mayor of toronto, gerard ford? it kind of becomes a mess. But if you can get it done, then over the next 20 years, things slowly shift in the right direction, as things have to be maintained by the city, and they decide hey maybe we'll redo some of this in a different way that makes more sense and will legitimately feel better to drive even if suburbanites have been so propagandized to hate everything but a 6 lane totally car centric road.
I also would maybe contest the point about people driving in lieu of anything else, you know, I mean, this is sort of always the problem with urbanist solutions, right, is this chicken or the egg problem. Sometimes it's easier to get big funding, even venture capital funding, for new development along a newly federally or state funded rail project, right, and that's obviously a good thing, and then sometimes it's easier to just change your regulations and then slowly make it so people can actually take their bike some place, right. I mean, you just kind of have to do both at once, whenever they become available as options, whenever prevailing conditions allow, and it takes a while. Hopefully you don't get shafted with a useless kind of commuter park and ride rail line, but I suppose that's better than nothing, and you know, hopefully some sort of development could come in and help fill some of the surrounding development with walkable shit so people have actual destinations at the suburban end of that, but then, you know, that requires you change the zoning regulations around that end of the track. I dunno. If you make the neighborhoods more walkable and have more destinations you might actually want to go to, more intracity places to go to, then public transit usually gets better, and if people have good public transit then that's good for making walkable places because then you can kind of have the ability to expand people's horizons and let them go places without having to own a car. I dunno, chicken or the egg, but also you just kind of do them both because there's not really a dichotomy between them, is what I would assume that guy to be getting at.
When I referenced political will I mean the politicians.
My entire point is explaining the diff between what should be and what can be. Yes, we have the tech and the ability, but that doesn't really matter if it never gets put to law.
His original statement questioned why people weren't agreeing with his idea, I simply explained why it was an unrealistic goal.
I think you have a problem realizing the difference between 550 billion and 7.7 trillion. We have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be addressed, pretty much all of it makesore sense to do than spending trillions of dollars on roads.
Again, I understand roads should be better, but I also understand it's not really a politically viable option.
See, so this is kind of my problem, right. You've said that it's an unrealistic goal because it's not politically viable at the federal level, which, you know, other comment, right, I don't necessarily think that the majority of roads that people interface with on a daily basis have to be dealt with at the federal level, or have to deal with federal budget. I think the feds really only have to deal with like, amtrak and highways, and, again, not as much progress as there should be, right, but, progress on that front. More than we've had in the past 50 or 60 years, at least, which is a start.
But all that aside, right, like, this is a problem, a pretty major one at that, looking at death statistics, and even looking at projected problems like climate change, and the negative effect that this has on that. Not even necessarily just on the emissions of cars, which people plan to deal with via electric (booooo), but in terms of the cost of human development in such a fucked up way. Like ecological destabilization, and flooding from runoff, heat islands, shit like that, which, you know, climate change exacerbates. So we can agree, it's a problem, in general, that we need to deal with. Why is this, what the fuck are we talking about, you know? Like, what is the tradeoff here? What else would you rather spend fake money on? Why can't we just have healthcare and roads instead of having neither? Why is there this dichotomy, here? Like you're agreeing with the premise of the argument here but the disagreement is that it's like, not something you think we should spend political capital on, or just. Not something you think will get done? Like, why not? I dunno it is just kind of boggling my mind that you are agreeing with the core issue here, but you're disagreeing on the premise that nothing will happen about it.
I don't think you understand the separation of power between the state and the federal government. The federal government cannot dictate to the states how they build their roads. If you wanted to make overarching changes that require the states to spend money in a way they are not inclined to do, it must be done through Congress.
I think you may want to take a civics course or something? There is a limited supply of funding, while people like you or I would like to spend that money on things like infrastructure and healthcare. There are people out there who would rather siphen that funding into private corporations to make themselves very very wealthy. The people who want to be very very wealthy are already very wealthy and in positions of power to exert their influence over the government.
Our government was created by the wealthy, and has built in protections to ensure that the wealthy stay in charge. It's literally the entire point of having a bicameral Congress, where the Senate has true control over what bills are signed into action.