“Red light cameras do not increase safety,” says Eric Scrum with the National Motorists Association. “Quite frankly, they are not a solution in any shape or form.”
***
Studies by the Federal Highway Administration show right angle crashes decreased by 25 to 30 percent, but rear-end crashes increased by about 15 percent.
Here.
{ 10 comments }
Sure. Because most drivers follow to close and should be cited for it.
Red light cameras work perfectly, just as intended. They help solve the problem of governments not being able to pay for Cadillac spending programs and gold-plated salary and benefits packages for legislators, bureaucrats and police. As the wealth is gradually drained out of the economy and revenues from traditional sources decline, you can expect a lot more invasions of your pocketbook to be invented … for your own good of course.
The funny thing is that in most states you can just contest the ticket you get in the mail and say you weren’t the driver and attach a photocopy of your driver’s license and then they have to drop the ticket.
At least that’s the way it was in Oregon not too long ago.
Bill Wald: Sure. Because most drivers follow to close and should be cited for it.
People do follow too close but they follow too close at non-redlight camera intersections too. The reason why rear-end collisions go up at redlight camera intersections is because the cameras change driver behavior.
I once had to give a 15 minute speech on this topic so I’ve done my homework. You can divide the road approaching an intersection into 3 zones. Far from the intesection is the “Must Stop” zone, if the light turns red while you are in this zone then you must stop. Close to the intersection you have the “Must NOT Stop” zone, if the light turns red while you are in this zone then you must keep going, it would be unsafe to try to stop. Between these two zones is what is called the “Decision” zone, here you must make a split second decision whether to stop or go.
Redlight cameras have the effect of increasing the size of the Decision zone and decreasing the size of the Must Not Stop zone in the mind of the driver. This causes people to attempt sudden stops they would not otherwise try. Or in other words a driver slams on brakes to avoid a ticket but the people behind them may believe they have already passed into the Must Not Stop zone. The result is absolutely predictable.
Jordan: The funny thing is that in most states you can just contest the ticket you get in the mail and say you weren’t the driver and attach a photocopy of your driver’s license and then they have to drop the ticket.
In NC they don’t care who is driving they just mail the ticket to the person the car is registered to. You can theoretically get out of a ticket if you weren’t driving but you have to become a snitch for the State. In other words you can’t merely say you weren’t driving, you have to tell them who was driving. You have to give them a name so they can send the ticket to someone else!
But the kicker is you can’t even contest a ticket until AFTER you have paid it!
Y’all are just missing the point! Traffic enforcement isn’t about improving safety, it’s about enhancing revenue. At that, cameras are fantastic! Some of the biggest lobbyists for them are the makers of the equipment!
Revenue Enhancement Through Traffic Fines
The state of California is bankrupt. In order to enhance its revenue new “traffic fines” have become effective, fines which are in effect
taxation under a different name.
Proof:
A first time ticket for not wearing a seat belt consists of a “basic fine” charged at $20. To this amount various mandatory state, county and
local penalties and fees are added for a total of $78 to $98. These amounts are not public and the
driver learns of them once they have been set for
his case by making a phone call to an automated answering machine.
A “second offense” gives rise to charges which range up to $190, depending upon the county.
Additional statutory assessments may be added.
These exorbitant charges are justified by the improvement in safety which they are said to bring about.
To challenge a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt is made nearly impractical by the conditions imposed upon the driver so charged. This insures that such nebulous observations as an officer stating that he could see that a driver was not wearing a seatbelt will lead to enhancement of government income.
It’s always been my opinion that the 2nd Amendment and un-attended things like red-light cameras and speed-trap cameras could not coexist. It has only just now occurred to me that the abrogation of the 2nd Amendment has reached a point where those cameras are now safe and, should I be surprised, they are are in more and more wide spread use.
Yes, people follow too closely. They get away with it because of the general predictability of other drivers. The cameras changed the parameters of the situation, it’s no surprise that the outcomes are changed.
Someone suggested to me the use of a drivers side IRON SPIKE mounted in the steering wheel, pointed directly at the chest of the driver, would go quite a ways in solving the problem of tailgating.
Airbags have killed thousands of children, elderly and small individuals who “sit too close” to the deploying bag. Oh, but wait, they’re mandatory.
Ok, enough of my ranting. I have been so disgusted with the absurdities layered upon the quite rational “rules of the road”, and had far too much time on the road to think about them.
Frankly who cares if motorists have more crashes. The important question is whether cameras reduce pedestrian and cyclist injuries.
I investigated accidents for 30 years as a Seattle Police Officer. There is very seldom a justification for running into something that isn’t moving. 98% of the time rear end accidents are caused by following to close, inattention, or speeding.
Of those, inattention is the only real problem. “Speeding” is all relative and depends on if the driver is not in control of the vehicle and/ or endangering others. I have been speeding for years and never caused any accidents or hurt anyone. Most people consider me a good driver who maintains proper attention and control of the vehicle.
Law enforcement is subjective as it is, let’s face it. We may as well make the law subjective as well.
For example, I don’t have any problem talking on the phone while driving. They are two separate and distinct processes that do not interfere with my abilities. However, asian women driving around while talking on the phone? Recipe for disaster. Thanks to them none of us can talk on phones in Maryland while driving.
Speeding tickets are nothing more than a revenue raiser. Cell phone laws pretty much the same.
Comments on this entry are closed.