this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
996 points (92.9% liked)

memes

18268 readers
1785 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 20 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'm a little confused, do you want people running red lights in the name of "personal liberty, yeehaw" because that seems like a bad idea.

[–] kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

No, I just haven't seen any evidence red light cameras are effective.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/

Also I don't like everything being under camera surveillance, so I need a strong justification to be fine with more of it

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Red light cameras may not be effective at making streets safer. But, they're nearly 100% effective at making people who run red lights pay fines. The first one would be amazing, but I'm happy to settle for the second one.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You sound like someone who can likes rich people getting away with just paying fines for being rich assholes

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And you sound like someone who wants to be able to run red lights without consequences.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

No, I just want traffic lights enforced without being in a surveilance state, but the better solution is just to make more streets illegal to have cars instead of adding lights, and add bus routes instead

But people will be lazy and say eh, surveilance state is good enough for me since Im not affected! More buses. Fewer cars. Fewer lights necessary and fewer surveliance cameras necessary.

[–] Thadrax@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

without being in a surveilance state

Those cameras only activate when people run a red light, right? And if they don't, that's the problem that should be fixed, not taking down the whole thing instead. People following the rules and not endanger others is kinda a good thing.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago
[–] urandom@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is not the cameras then, but the fines. Should be proportional to net worth

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

we both know thatll never happen in america, and until then its a law for poors only, as designed. Its continued existence only affects poor people

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cameras specifically to catch people running red-lights will only take a photo when a car crosses a red light rather than run continuously.

They'll only have you "under surveillance" if and when you're breaking the law by running a red light.

So if you're so worried about "surveillance" from those cameras, don't run red-lights.

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are other, newer cameras like those from Flock that run and check continuously. I prefer the old-school ones you're talking about.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, those are a massive, MASSIVE concern when it comes to pervasive surveillance.

When I lived in the UK it already had a similar thing in the form of license-plate-reading cameras all over the place (the UK is even a biggest civil society surveillance dystopia than the US, or at least it used to be but maybe the US has caught up with it).

When driving in anywhere but dirt roads in such a country you absolutelly are almost constantly under surveillance and that shit is going into a database were it will stay forever and ever.

Redlight cameras, however, need not include "always on" or even "license plate reading" features.

[–] kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, the old ones are fine, but they're just turning into mass surveillance tools now

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Big problem with these is profit motivation. They are usually operated by a for profit business that the city contracts to. One of the cities near me had a few installed. The company made 5 million a year in fines, city ended up with pennies. The road is built like a 40mph road but has a 25mph speed limit only where the cameras are. There is no money to update the road to actually make it safer because it all goes to the company operating the cameras.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That's not to mention they usually change the timing to catch people off guard for more tickets. Someone went around in my area timing a bunch of different lights and found that every light with the ticket generating cameras had yellow lights shorter than the legal limit for the state.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The photo shows a traffic light enforcement, not speed enforcement.

There's a road near me that has an unnaturally slow speed limit enforced by a camera. That's a bit annoying. But, it also has red light cameras nearby. Those are great. I really don't care what someone's excuse is: I was distracted, I thought I could make the yellow, the light was taking too long... if you think you really do have a valid case, talk to the judge.

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I made this point in another comment, but these cameras send you bills instead of tickets. They ignore our right to a fair trial and subvert our right to confront our accuser. The only one I've received had no info on how to dispute it, just pay or fuck you type of bill.

A red light camera is no different than a speeding camera in this regard.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I made this point in another comment, but these cameras send you bills instead of tickets

Maybe where you live, not where I live.

[–] pahlimur@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Canada? You really think you are somehow safe from this shit huh.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

dude.... red light camera infractions, or speeding infractions, just result in fines. No impact on the driver because the fines are tagged onto the vehicle. So, douchenozzles in Toronto just pay to speed and run lights without any impact.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

Is that better than them speeding and not paying?

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

at least you admit your ignorance

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You think I'm ignorant because...?

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You gladly admit you think canada is immune from the american surveliance state.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago

Not immune, but not safer, definitely. A lot of bullshit like that is a south-of-the-border phenomenon.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago

Well, this is a meme. But I personally am anti-surveillance. With the way things are going, these will almost certainly be "upgraded" to ALPR/"AI" systems for 24/7 surveillance and tracking; I'm guessing some probably already are.