Safety advocates and some state leaders have been down this road before but are hoping the third try will be the charm.

hoping this catches on, pretty please CA…

i like the fact that the money can only go into maintaining the speed cameras or into making the road safer. those are both things desperately needed, especially in LA.

  • PostmodernPythia@beehaw.orgEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    NYC is also an edge case, though. Using it to represent the whole country is kind of bonkers. Speeding cameras in a crowded city, where everyone’s aware a lot is going on, and going fast is hard, probably have very different results than speeding cameras in areas that are less concentrated.

    • Pseu@beehaw.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      First, NYC has a variety of different road types, and most cities have at least some highly mixed roads. I’m not sure where NYC’s cameras were positioned, and I’m at work, so I can’t read up on it.

      And other studies have also shown speed cameras to be effective:

      Twenty eight studies measured the effect on crashes. All 28 studies found a lower number of crashes in the speed camera areas after implementation of the program. In the vicinity of camera sites, the reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, with reductions for most studies in the 14% to 25% range. For injury crashes the decrease ranged between 8% to 50% and for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries the reductions were in the range of 11% to 44%. Effects over wider areas showed reductions for all crashes ranging from 9% to 35%, with most studies reporting reductions in the 11% to to 27% range. For crashes resulting in death or serious injury reductions ranged from 17% to 58%, with most studies reporting this result in the 30% to 40% reduction range. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time.

      https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/abstract