Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

optifreebraun t1_je7zrkg wrote

Reply to comment by CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH in Connecticut to Test Speed Enforcement Cameras in Work Zones Beginning in April by NewsHugh

But it doesn't do it more effectively.

What are we trying to accomplish here? Raise revenue for private companies - then yes, definitely more effective.

But actually reduce speeds and increase safety? You need visible deterrents - such as a police cruiser.

And who says they need to stop people? A police cruiser with its lights on in a construction site is a far better deterrent than hidden camera to slow people down - nothing sets off brake lights quicker than cruiser with its disco lights going.

Nice try, PR guy.

3

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je81krk wrote

Studies have consistently shown that speed camera enforcement reduces driver speed.

But I'm sure you'll deny any scientific evidence that you disagree with as propaganda.

You can continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some evil lizard person. Have fun on your flat earth.

2

optifreebraun t1_je82fpw wrote

Man, the PR folks are prepared tonight - you've got the studies to show this! I mean, other than PR folks, who else is ready with scientific evidence and studies? I think you've just proved my point.

4

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je82pqi wrote

Activists who want to reduce road fatalities.

People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer.

Those are the people who are likely to cite studies on these topics. I fall into the second category.

3

optifreebraun t1_je835li wrote

Activists funded by traffic camera companies = shill.

Can you share with us your research? Are you associated with a university for these studies? Any corporate funding for that research?

3

CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je849tp wrote

I said that I know about this because I had a close friend die due to our dangerous roads. Learn to read.

This is a systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of speed cameras: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/full

4

optifreebraun t1_je84v59 wrote

Boy, you sure are condescending. I know how to read, but I just don't believe you.

As you fall into the self-professed category of "People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer," pray tell, what was *your research*?

Edit: Your research versus that random link you gave out as part of your PR shill presentation.

1

dkdaniel t1_je82vm9 wrote

He fenced his position by preemptively claiming anybody who disagrees must be getting paid, that there is no possible good faith reason to disagree. It's intellectual cowardice.

1

optifreebraun t1_je9fg0d wrote

Ad hominem attacks of cowardice - almost as if you’re a professional who’s livelihood depended on this.

And in this case I am correct - you are getting paid. Who else is this passionate about installing regressive taxation solutions that are effective only for raising money for private companies?

2

dkdaniel t1_je9q0ix wrote

Do you not realize that calling everyone a shill is an Ad Hominem?

0

optifreebraun t1_je9qncs wrote

I’m not calling everyone a shill - just the people that are shills. I seem to have caught at least a couple in this thread.

1

dkdaniel t1_je829b9 wrote

The speed cameras are going to be more visible than police cruisers with signs alerting you before you enter the work zone

1

optifreebraun t1_je82mau wrote

So the company that you work for will have speed cameras with big signs alerting us to the speed cameras? Can you show us a sample?

I still think the LED disco lights of a police cruiser is far more visible and serves as a better deterrent than any sign.

5

optifreebraun t1_je9fjz7 wrote

Awww, poor shill can’t answer this question because the shill knows those signs won’t exist.

Buzz off and tell your company we’re not interested.

1