• GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Design speed is the most important tool when it comes to managing speeds, but speed cameras are a useful tool in the toolbox to address specific problematic spots, in the very least until a design speed-based solution can be deployed, which may for economic reasons be when the road warrants resurfacing.

    In Sweden, cameras are used to specifically reduce speed in crash-prone spots, such as in intersections where drivers merge onto a higher speed road. Drivers get advance notice in the form of a sign that a speed camera will be upcoming on the road in several hundred meters, and speed limit compliance naturally follows at the point of the camera. They are effective at reducing crashes when deployed in this manner.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It costs millions to refurbish just 1 road to safer standards while the cameras costs thousands to operate. Rehabilitation when due for resurfacing is the most economically viable option, hopefully most of the revenue from the cameras is dedicated to making safer streets. I’ll take the cameras in the meantime because speed is one of the biggest factors in roadway safety. Its not a perfect solution, but is far better than doing nothing.

      • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        There an more refurbishing options for improvements, and you can use them to incrementally test before the next resurface.

        Jersey barriers, concrete planters, surface treatments/paint, flexposts, and snow clearing width reduction pip to mind.