I think the reference to ‘shortcut’ explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?
It’s when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there’s no camera. Yes it’s technically speeding, but very common.
Yes, some people hit the gas just after the camera. They also peel off on smaller streets to ‘make up time’. I suspect these are people who are in a hurry / late, or just impatient. People do this on the highway too after clearing radar traps. Or after overtaking someone traveling slowly. I don’t know if the effect is significant. People are weird and side effects can be unexpected. I’m just not sure that we should totally assume cameras that slow down measured speeds actually increases safety.
I haven’t seen data like you mentioned- it seems strange that there wouldn’t be an array of speeders like anywhere else. I think most people’s complaints about these things are that they trigger at too close to the limit - doing 52 in a 50 zone is not unsafe, and can help with the flow of traffic. It probably depends on the area. I can afford a ticket, but I still avoid areas with cameras. With all the traffic calming stuff and cameras, I actually just avoid going out more and order stuff from Amazon instead of supporting my local stores.
Logically, slower speeds should make safer streets. But it’s not 100% a sure thing. When people are in a hurry, they find other ways and that’s when things get more dangerous.
And no, traffic cams only give monetary fines not demerit points or a criminal record like if you get pulled over by a cop. They don’t assess who the driver is, so they can’t blame it on a particular person. So rich people don’t care at all about going fast in those areas - it’s just a fee to go fast to them.
It’s all measured speed reduction in the camera zones. That doesn’t mean people are driving safer, or slower on average even. That people have changed their behavior doesn’t mean it’s safer. More use of smaller residential roads that don’t have cameras is probably not safer. Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn’t safer either.
Well it doesn’t actually say that. There’s no measurments of accidents or injuries here. The only metrics are reduced speeding in the measured areas. I don’t tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?
But you need to grow the tax base to pay for that stuff, no?
True, but that’s independent of the pdf page size. If there’s a 1e12x1e12 complex jpeg image even on a small pdf page, it would still be a huge file.
Sure. It’s all about the level of detail. An 8-1/2x11" pdf with lots of very small detail that you have to zoom way in to see would also be a very big file.
Yes, it’s all vector graphics. It doesn’t matter how big the scale is.
Peak efficiency there.
But use 2147483647 to be safe.
There are reports of tickets for 2km/h over. penalties start at 1km/h over.
Whatever - you do you. I’ll stick to the smaller roads away from the cameras. No risk to me then.