Hacker News Reader

Comment by belorn | Hacker News Reader

Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras? Here in Sweden, traffic camera is used exclusively to reduce traffic speed on roads where the maximum speed is too fast for installing traffic bumps, with an expected effect of reducing traffic speed by around 20-30%. They are generally only installed on 60-90km/h roads, around road maintenance/construction sites, and in tunnels. They active when the radar detects speeds of 5km above the maximum. (The reduction in speed happens regardless if the camera is functional or not, since it is primarily a psychological effect).

Sweden also have traffic monitors that monitor highways around cities, border exists and tunnels, and also license plate readers for toll roads and bridges (also often used for parking). Those two generally have a much higher privacy cost than traffic cameras.

View on HN

When the cameras become a revenue stream for a city it is not a good thing.

Cameras have been installed to fine cars running red lights. The city then reduces the length of the yellow to catch more people and offset the high cost of the cameras. The shortened yellows cause increased crashes and fatalities.

Net-net the track record in the states is not great.

One example https://www.koaa.com/news/news5-investigates/news-5-investig...

Here in Seattle the traffic cameras are not used to limit speed, but to monitor intersections for red-light violations. The glue-squirting fellow in my anecdote objected to the fact that the for-profit corporation which builds and operates these cameras gets a cut of the revenue from the citations they issue. He felt that it was one thing to enforce the law, and quite another thing to run a profitable business doing it.

That makes more sense. Traffic accidents should not be a profit center, and placing cameras where it makes the most money is unlikely to align with places where it has the biggest impact on reducing fatal accidents. The Vision Zero goal that Sweden has is often cited as a guiding rule for designing the road system, including the use of measures like road bumps and traffic cameras. Giving money from the fines to a for-profit corporation seems fairly obvious that it will create perverse incentives.

> Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras?

Its going to be unpopular but yes i think so. Traffic cameras, besides very few use cases, are completely useless (just like speed limits in general). Plus it's a huge temptation for local authorities to turn it into a cash cow and put it anywhere they please regardless of necessity. Italy is rife with those for example.

Speed cameras help really little with preventing accidents unless we're talking about 200 at 100. Put in cameras that detect tailgating/not maintaining enough distance relative to speed.

Now people can go faster while being safer.

The Swedish traffic agency, in combination with the health department, openly publish accident data for every road. Accidents and their outcomes are public data and has been so for a long time. The location of traffic cameras is also public and so is the date when they got installed. Everything is open to the public, and gps applications are allowed to both have the data and warn drivers.

The accident rate from before to after the installation of a camera has an average reduction of around 25% in reducing deaths in traffic. If someone don't believe it they can download the public data themselves and redo the math.

Sweden also do not have traffic cameras on highways, most likely because they are ineffective in reducing deadly outcomes at those speeds. The chance of surviving a frontal collision at 100km/h is highly unlikely, so the cost of installation a camera is better spent on roads with lower maximum speeds where the reduction in average speed actually have an effect on outcomes.

> The accident rate from before to after the installation of a camera has an average reduction of around 25% in reducing deaths in traffic

Try to forbid movement in the area and you can reach 100% reduce in deaths.

Statistics and data doesn't tell you the whole picture and often skewed.

Most crimes in Sweden are committed by "refugees" by huge margin, but good luck doing something about it or let alone talk about it publicly. But hey, lets install another camera to have everyone to slow down and exacerbate traffic conditions further down.

Reducing speed by 20-30% at scale results in a very large loss of man-years of lives in the form of sitting in a car. Reduced earning capacity, lost time with their families, waking up earlier and risks to health associated with reduced sleep, less theoretical throughput of roadways, reduced money for education/food/childcare when they accidently go too fast for a moment and are fined, lack of discretion in issuing tickets for bona fide emergencies, people suddenly slowing down before camera causing accidents, etc.

The obvious win in places like the US is that being pulled over is one of the most dangerous thing that ever happens to the common person, as they are exposed to a psychopath with a gun who is trained that the most important thing is to optimize every interaction to maximize his chance of 'making it home to his family' and if a policeman shoots everything that moves (up to and including, falling acorns) because he 'fears for his life' he will largely get away with it. So it is a nice alternative to that.

Its incredible how very reasonable thoughts and arguments are downvoted.

For those who downvote - lets just forbid movement to reach 100% reduce in movement related injuries, is that your strategy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com