[supertrope]

This is not that different from neighborhoods that ban through through truck traffic, or only allow residents to park curbside.

There is a fundamental trade-off between favoring people transiting through an area and residents. As someone traveling through you want wide straight roads with high speed limits. As a resident through traffic burdens you with pedestrian danger, air pollution, noise, and more crashes. So you lobby your council member to lower speed limits, add stop signs, and add traffic calming.

[mistrial9]

it becomes different when there is automated, remote enforcement associated with fines

[pjc50]

Let me introduce you to the "speed camera".

(Invented by Maurice Gatsonides many years ago as a rally training tool, of all things)

[supertrope]

I think we'd be better off with 100% toll roads. Instead of feeling like you got singled out with a fine, just pay for what you use.

[dolorian]

This is the real answer, but we're too used to the game of wealth redistribution, where we're all secretly hoping someone else will pay for what we want. It's very antisocial, it externalizes the costs of your actions onto everyone else.

Trucking causes 99% of damage to roads, but pays only 30% of the bill.

[zamnos]

That's not a very difficult technology. Thankfully, depending on your jurisdiction, that's seen as a violation of civil rights, and is illegal (unless manually operated by a police officer, in the case of Nevada, for instance).

[pjc50]

Oxford is not in Nevada.

This is where the culture war comes in: there's no reason why people in Nevada should care about traffic planning in Oxford!

[dsfyu404ed]

>This is where the culture war comes in: there's no reason why people in Nevada should care about traffic planning in Oxford!

The bulk of the commentary on this website consists of people who are not directly affected by a thing opining about that thing.

Why the double standard? What makes your interest legitimate while others is illegitimate?