EDIT: since apparently a bunch of people woke up with the wrong foot this morning or forgot to check the group they’re in:

This is a joke. Do not steal or vandalize speed enforcement cameras (or anything else for that matter). That’s against the law and you will likely get arrested.

If you’re addicted to crack or any other drugs, please seek professional help.

  • byroon@lemmy.world
    32·
    9 months ago

    Even better solution though: the street at a school zone that no driver more sane than the most insane Florida Man would not fathom driving any faster than 20 km/h, no speed cameras required.

    What?

    • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
      91·
      9 months ago

      It’s simple. If you design the road to be wide, straight, with wide, clearly marked lanes, clear sides and a smooth surface, people will naturally be inclined to drive faster. This is based on experiences with forgiving design. For motorways, this is fine. But for residential neighbourhoods and school zones, it’s a bloodbath waiting to happen.

      So out there, you do the exact opposite. Make the street so narrow that anything bigger than an average pickup truck barely fits in a lane. Make it out of brick and don’t mark the centre of the road. Surround the street with shrubs and other obstacles, and stick it full of sharp chicanes.

      This is the deliberate inverse of forgiving design, called traffic calming.

      • 𝔄 𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔭𝔦𝔢𝔠𝔢 𝔬𝔣 𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔢𝔰𝔢@lemmy.world
        3·
        9 months ago

        Hey, I live on a road like that. It’s not even bricks, but good ol’ cobblestone. The cars also share it with a tram.

        There’s a lot of pedestrians crossing. It’s a residential area with shops in the ground floor of all the buildings.

        There’s multiple schools and kindergartens around, so they set the speed limit to 30km/h. Does that matter? No. People go 50-60 during the day and 70-80 at night. The only times that doesn’t happen is when the cops set up a mobile speed camera.

        The road is fairly straight, I’ll give you that, but I guess they can’t just demolish a few kilometres of 100yrs old houses to make to road a bit winding.

        • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          I mean, if the road street takes up only part of the width of the right of way, you can do a lot with blocking off half the road street and alternating which side every few dozen metres. No demolition required.

          Upon closer inspection, what you just described is a street, not a road.

          Also, even with a narrower street, with strategically placed obstacles, you can convince drivers to zig-zag and reduce their speed that way.

          • 𝔄 𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔦𝔢𝔫𝔱 𝔭𝔦𝔢𝔠𝔢 𝔬𝔣 𝔠𝔥𝔢𝔢𝔰𝔢@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 months ago

            I didn’t know there was a difference, I’ve been using them synonymously.

            With the proposed changes traffic would have to wait constantly to let the other side pass. You would not only limit speed, but als throughput. If you just go slower because of speed cameras, the amount of traffic can stay the same.

            There’s a lot of cars and lorries going through here. Sometimes a road/street that has a lot of traffic just goes through a fairly residential area and we kind of have to live with the fact.

            And if you think that’s bad city planning call the eighteen hundreds and complain to these people.

            • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              There’s a difference. A road is meant to be a fast connection between points at the ends. This calls for forgiving design and higher speeds.
              Meanwhile, a street is meant to be for allowing access to the nearby land. That warrants lower speeds, and the expectation that anyone can be on any of the sides as they see necessary. A street should function less like a vehicle artery, and more like an outdoor room.

              Notice that these are incompatible uses. North American traffic engineers clearly didn’t, allowing main streets to become the main thoroughfare, i.e. the main roads through an area as well. This produces the most dangerous type of transportation infrastructure: the stroad. Which is both meant to be a fast connection AND access to the nearby land, and in doing so fails at both.

              If this stretch of car infrastructure you were discussing is supposed to be a street, vehicle throughput should probably be one of the last priorities, and vehicles are better off on a road a few blocks over.

      • milkytoast@kbin.social
        0·
        9 months ago

        nah fuck brick roads. the rest sure. not brick. dangerous for panick braking (less traction), wears iunt tires and suspension prematurely

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          Main roads shouldn’t be brick, but local residential streets certainly should. The speed limit should be 30 km/h or less anyway, and in a well-designed road network they should only make up a tiny portion of your overall drive, so wearing tyres and suspension isn’t an issue.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          3·
          9 months ago

          Not an issue in Europe. Though granted the US would probably need to replace their fire trucks with sanely-sized ones. You also don’t need to haul a big-ass ladder in a low-density area what’s your plan use it to do a header into a suburban pool.

          Regarding response time absence of gridlock will be more important than the last hundred metres on a residential street, consider investing in public transportation, walkable cities, and generally everything that abolishes owning and using a car being mandatory.