They do. They objectively do. How are there so many people all over this thread just confidently asserting complete, disprovable bullshit, and why is it getting upvoted? From the Cochrane systematic review:

Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%.

Authors' conclusions: Despite the methodological limitations and the variability in degree of signal to noise effect, the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. However, whilst the the evidence base clearly demonstrates a positive direction in the effect, an overall magnitude of this effect is currently not deducible due to heterogeneity and lack of methodological rigour. More studies of a scientifically rigorous and homogenous nature are necessary, to provide the answer to the magnitude of effect.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Interesting. Mostly what I see is people slam on their brakes near the camera, then take off again after it.

My theory: There's so little enforcement of the traffic laws here, they might as well not exist. You're almost certain NOT to get caught, so people will do whatever they want and will practically always get away with it. I don't really want to argue for more cops, but when I've driven in areas with more traffic enforcement and visible police presence, people tend to drive much more sedately.

I drive and ride bicycle, and I would LOVE if the cops came riding with me some time. I see some of them doing the 100 mile ride for charity in our county, so I know they have people on the force who ride fairly seriously. Join one of our regular group rides wearing cycling clothes (not police gear), get another cop stationed ahead in a car or motorcycle...and start pulling over some people who buzz us or roll coal. Word would get out very quickly.

[–] TheTechnician27 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For me personally, I think more cops isn't the ideal solution. Instead, I think traffic calming measures should be introduced to make drivers feel less safe if they choose to speed.

Better enforcement is 100% necessary, and I think speed cams can be a good way to prevent dangerous driving through the threat of enforcement. That said, I also think in terms of cost efficiency that direct preventative measures such as speed cushions, bollards, trees, medians, sidewalk extensions, lane narrowing, roundabouts, etc. will be more cost-effective to some point than and should be used in conjunction with speed cams.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can see those kinds of things working in or near cities, but out where I am - fairly rural - there's just too many miles of road to install a bunch of speed humps or similar things. It would take a monumental amount of money. They don't even have shoulders on most of the roads. I admit even I speed when I'm driving them, although I'll slow down for bends in the road so as not to clobber a deer, cyclist, pedestrian, etc. that might be lurking out of sight.

(I got into a fun argument here on Lemmy a few months back with someone who insisted horse and buggies should have lights, and I was like, "What happens when you come around the bend too fast and there's a tree laying in the road?" He just couldn't accept the problem is the driver, not the horse and buggy. Basically, that's what's wrong with drivers in the US: We, as a group, have a bizarre expectation that things will always go to plan.)

I'm also nervous about these solutions for another reason - I've seen towns install those kinds of calming measures in a way that hurts cyclists. In one example, they extended the curbs out to the lane, which does slow down traffic - but it forces cyclists who could previously ride on the shoulder into the lane, thereby further enraging drivers. I had one asshole pass me in that very narrow section some years ago, so now I make sure to ride in the middle of it, so they'd actually have to hit me. They won't do that because they don't want to damage their precious car, so I'm safe.

And I say this as someone that lives in an area that's actually pretty good for cycling, that is, most drivers are actually pretty good about passing safely and all that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.

I'd be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you're likely to only injure yourself.

Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn't for another.

Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you're just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can't use the area but bikes can.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.

Fatalities are typically more common in rural areas (proportional to population). Likely because of higher speed roads and higher drink driving rates in rural areas. And maybe due to truck drivers and people driving long distances driving sleep deprived.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you're less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it's more likely to be fatal?

Overall, like I said, I don't really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don't really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would love to see a more recent study. Safety tends to be a weird subject, particularly the treadmill of introducing safety features, which means more drivers drive unsafely because safety features give an appearance of safety.

Overall, I still stand by what I said outside of maybe the very first sentence. Even if they DO slow traffic, there are vastly better ways that don't have a disproportionate impact.

My city started putting in speed cushions at roads that were constantly over-traveled. Neighborhoods that would see increased traffic during rush hour, for instance. They're aggressive, you have to go BELOW the speed limit to safely drive the route. Those roads see SIGNIFICANTLY less traffic, and the traffic that is there is slower.

Fines just don't work to deter your average driver, or at least not as much as physics does.

[–] TheTechnician27 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Oh yeah, just to be clear, I'm a massive fan of urbanist channels like NJB and absolutely stan the shit out of traffic calming measures. Give me more trees on the sides of the road to make it feel narrower. Give me speed humps. Give me medians. Give me sidewalk extensions. Give me roundabouts. Inject that shit into my veins. I see speed cameras as just one tool in an arsenal to create safer driving conditions, and mercifully, it seems like the US is starting to warm up to those.

I'm pretty sure we're 100% on the same page here as far as traffic calming measures go, and I think we'd both agree too that if there are fines, they need to be adjusted to account for income. (Here's an upvote by the way to counteract that downvote; this is one of like two reasonable takes I've seen in this thread against speed cameras.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

((yeah it seems like there's a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they're implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can't be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren't revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.

I think in an ideal world, I'd set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It's HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it's subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.

From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.

Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that's going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it's something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates.

I suspect many cars on the road can't even be driven safely at that speed, and then you have to account for the driving ability of the average person.

You'd have more cases where there are high speed differentials too with some only going 60mph, and others going 100mph, increasing the amount of passing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you're doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you're always going to have dumbasses.

[–] FelixCress 0 points 1 month ago

Germany would like a word 🙄