… [A]chieving Vision Zero still needs a level of political courage and determination rarely seen in the Bay Area. At rallies, politicians always claim “one life lost is too many,” but then flounder when it’s time to back that up with a serious street intervention or far-reaching regulations. Perhaps the most obscene examples of this were Governor Newsom’s decision to veto Scott Wiener’s speed-governor bill last year, or Supervisor Myrna Melgar’s sabotage of a safety plan in West Portal after a family of four was wiped out by a reckless driver. My fear is that cities will install speed cameras and celebrate the marginal safety improvements, allowing the politicians to declare victory. In reality, speed cameras should be viewed as the least a city can do, not the most.
You can’t really use a speed bump on higher speed roads, where speed cameras can be a good choice to enforce speed limits.
Strategic use on roads with a desired speed around 70 km/h around areas with collision risk is a good use-case for speed cameras. This is how they are often deployed in Sweden - you put up a sign warning drivers that a speed is imminent, and compliance with the speed limit becomes essentially universal. A drop in crash risk follows.
Using speed bumps and roundabouts is also obviously good, but they serve different use-cases.