Maybe instead of roads designed for 80, set to 60, and reduced to 40, and then speed-camera’d, they could (get this) build roads that encourage drivers to follow the limit.
The only thing speed cameras and the current set up does is create a funnel for revenue, which was the goal to begin with.
They design the roads to encourage faster speeds, then penalize people for utilizing the roads as they were designed with fines. Those of adequate financial means pay the fines and continue on their way, providing revenue, while those who can’t afford the fines get funneled into the prison system and become free labor.
There is no incentive for the State apparatus to make roads safer because that just means more operating costs while also forfeiting their near guaranteed revenue stream and losing one of their pipelines for the prison-industrial complex. The benefits only exist for the people, which we all know our governments don’t actually give a shit about beyond how easily we can be exploited for the sake of “duh economy”.
Yes, I know most of these examples are actually not a thing when you consider the long term effects of proper urban design and planning but unfortunately proper planning also has the side effect of empowering the working class and building community, which is something the State (or more aptly the owning class which controls it) absolutely does not want, as a strong community is more likely to gain class consciousness and realize life doesn’t actually have to be full of mindless drudgery.
Toronto is in Canada which doesn’t have much of a prison industrial complex. Drivers will have their lisences taken away before they are facing prison time for simple speeding offenses. Extreme speeding or dangerous driving could see people serving time but nobody is going to jail over a ASE ticket. Unpaid ASE tickets will cause your cars registration to fail to renew, making it illegal to drive which often will not result in prison time unless you repeatedly drive without registration/lisencing.
Yes, but the issue is it is a systemic thing, there are logical steps that lead from “simply being slapped with a fine” to “winding up in prison” through a chain of events by the overarching systems which dictate their life.
I already established that they are poor so they can’t afford the fine which will mean they lose their license and eventually vehicle registration. Welp, that’s even more expenses which they already couldn’t afford, so this can’t get rectified without outside assistance. I know Toronto is better about it than say the US but it is still pretty car-centric and this individual still needs to get to their job, shop for groceries, and generally be able to participate in society around them. Yet, now they don’t have a car to do so but it is still necessitated by car-centric urban planning. So, this puts them in a desperate situation where they must commit crime (drive without license/registration) in order to survive. They can’t just not go to work and not get groceries after all. It is only a matter of time before their luck runs out and they get caught but that doesn’t change that they still must do the same thing tomorrow and the day after if they are to meet their needs, so they must continue to roll the dice.
As you said yourself, if they are caught repeatedly, which they will because as stated they don’t have alternatives readily accessible, they are forced into prison.
I lived in Toronto for 15 years and I never owned a car, no you very much do not need one to get to your job, go shopping, and participate in society, especially not at Dufferin south of frickin’ Bloor. People who get caught speeding so often that they can’t afford to keep driving can… just stop driving and take transit, which is what most people there do. The idea that they literally have no other choice and will be forced into prison is just absurd.
Thank you for your anecdotal evidence, especially the poignant knowledge about the specific area in question of the article. I will take that into consideration with the rest of what I have read about Toronto as a whole but I do not change my position on what I have said previously.
The argument isn’t something so simplistic as “they literally have no other choice”, which unfairly frames the argument as a judgement on the moral character of the individual. You miss the point by focusing on something so arbitrary and subjective. I’m talking about the systemic nature of the situation and the flaws in its structure by specifically making allowance for the fact that humans are fallible beings who make mistakes to purposely avoid passing judgment of the individual. Just because you were able to do it with your overall circumstances doesn’t mean that everyone is in a position to be able to do the same due to their own individual circumstances. Toronto isn’t a perfect utopia free from systemic flaws.
I’m not suggesting that the moral character of the individual is in any way relevant here, and I’m glad driver’s licenses are not issued or revoked on that basis. This is instead a straightforward question of public safety - anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to safely operate a motor vehicle on public roads according to the clearly posted and non-negotiable law should not permitted to risk the lives of others, and will be subject to escalating sanctions in order to accomplish that. There is definitely room for improvement in the system but it is fundamentally reasonable and sound. Yes, essentially anyone who lives in Toronto can get by without a car. Even if someone is severely physically disabled and confined to a wheelchair they can still use not only the fully accessible bus and subway system but also a separate disabled-specific transit system that provides door-to-door service using the same fee scale as the broader system. Toronto may not be a perfect utopia but it has gotten pretty close to solving this particular problem.
anyone who consistently demonstrates that they are unable or unwilling to [follow] the clearly posted and non-negotiable law
This right here is a moral argument. You’re suggesting that people are repeatedly making a conscious decision to “break the law”.
The entire concept around “if only they just didn’t choose to break the law” is a moral argument that places sole blame onto the individual for externalities that occurred as a result of the punitive nature of modern justice systems because they are based on the assumption that the individual “deserved to be punished because they are a ‘bad person’ for repeatedly ‘breaking the law’, so the consequences are their fault” instead of taking into account the material circumstances, understanding that humans are fallible creatures who unconsciously make mistakes, and not assign blame or punishment as it is inefficient at repressive, especially when those externalities have far reaching consequences for those of lesser means resulting in the punishment being unfairly weighted based on financial status. Instead, we need to improve our roadways to influence drivers through affecting the material conditions directly at the root cause.
And cool, that’s your anecdotal take on Toronto and a single service exclusive to disabled people. What about non disabled people? They exist, in Toronto, you can go read those anecdotal accounts in the FuckCars sub on Reddit who speak about how car-centric areas of Toronto still are. Their anecdotal accounts are just as valid as yours. You simply assume that there are no situations that would be limiting to someone. I am making the opposite assumptions.
I emphatically disagree that it is “fundamentally reasonable and sound”. I am fundamentally opposed to this kind of justice system and believe it to be systemically flawed and oppressive. Though this is getting into the larger topic about the validity of hierarchical, punitive justice systems. The entire point is cities need to stop relying on ineffectual and harmful stop-gap methods and instead improve the damn urban design which is proven to be leagues more effective without the systemically harmful side effects.
Fun fact: once people get ticketed, by and large they slow down. Then once enough people on the route get a ticket, TRAFFIC slows down.
Source: I was there for Parkside. It was wild watching more and more people shift to a slow speed. You could literally tell who’d been ticketed for a few weeks in the middle. There was a short time where I’d call it “chaotic” because enough people were slowed down but a large enough percentage were still speeding and you basically had a road with 2 speed “limits”
Within a few months it had all settled and now people drive slower there. I got one ticket. I paid it.
once people get ticketed, by and large they slow down. Then once enough people on the route get a ticket, TRAFFIC slows down.
If that was the case, then speeding wouldn’t exist now and we wouldn’t need traffic calming and improved urban design. The majority of speeding isn’t done intentionally, and it is just a result of people driving at a speed that is comfortable based on the physical conditions and design of the road they are driving on.
Congratulations, you incurred a financial debt to the State due to an absent minded mistake and we’re in a situation where you had the income to be able to pay the ticket. Lucky you. Want a cookie?
Framing it as a moral failing of the individual is simplistic, shortsighted, and frankly judgmental. Systemically, punitive fines as a method of deterrent for a crime is only marginally effective while simultaneously being unfairly punishing to those of lower class income due to systemic externalities. The only reason it is popular in its usage is due to the additional benefits to the state as a stream of revenue as explained previously.
Being unable to read a sign posted every 200metres and act accordingly is a moral failing.
You are right that there are better ways to “guide” selfish idiots into driving slower, and the set fine means that it stings people like me (thanks for the underhanded insult though!) ruins others and means nothing to some. That’s a much bigger societal problem.
On the one hand, you are right and that is the ultimate solution. On the other hand it will cost millions to redesign one road whereas the cameras cost thousands to operate. The cameras can be used as a band aid solution but when the road is due for repaving or rehabilitation, it should be redesigned.
There could be some middle ground by adding those flappy sticks to narrow the lane and make turns sharper, requiring slower speeds, at intersections until the road can be properly rehabilitated.
Unfortunately it’s just too expensive to properly fix and redesign every road in the city. Even the posterchild of safe streets, The Netherlands, didn’t get safe streets overnight, they did the above strategy of making streets safer when they were due to be rehabilitated.
Ugh, I fucking cannot stand the excuse of “it’s too expensive”. God I fucking hate monetary based economics.
We have the material resources in abundance. We have the manpower and capability of doing so. We just don’t because we treat stupid, imaginary tokens of social value as a limiting factor. It’s so fucking ass-backwards. If the imaginary tokens are limiting what we are capable of accomplishing then we should change the way those tokens function so we can actually achieve progress instead of limiting ourselves so a few owning class fuckwits can maintain their obscene lifestyles and control over what is or isn’t possible.
There could be some middle ground by adding those flappy sticks to narrow the lane and make turns sharper
My city tried these. Every intersection they were placed all ended up broken within a month by people not paying attention and driving from habit. Now there are just nubs on the ground where they used to be as a reminder of how negligent and apathetic drivers are in my region.
Its too expensive is more than just an excuse. Good luck convincing a city council to go way into debt upgrading every single road all at once. The people building the road want to be paid, council needs the dollars to pay them and they only have so much. Short of redesigning the entire economy and function of the country, we can’t redesign or fix the roads without money.
What we can do is slowly improve one road at a time with more reasonable spending, for example making significant redesigns when the road is due for rehabilitation instead of just hiring a company to copy and paste new asphalt and paint. It will inflate rehab costs but the improvements will be worth it and save more money over time.
If I understand correctly, you’re misunderstanding his frustration. He doesn’t need an explanation of how the situation plays out in the current economic system. He’s frustrated that the resources are available to fix the problem but the current economic system is flawed and doesn’t efficiently apply these resources.
Not only does it fail to be efficient, it’s being exploited.
Short of redesigning the entire economy and function of the country,
Yea, that’s kinda the entire point I’m getting at.
If “duh economy” is preventing us from progressing, then we need to change how the economy works. I don’t care about the flimsy excuses that are predicated by the false assumption that we can’t change the system.
We’ll need a camera to watch the security camera watching the speed camera.
Who watches the watch cameras?
