Re: “Red-light cameras: Do they live up to hype?” (TNT, 9-12).
What is all the fuss about? My son is currently taking a driver’s education class, and he knows you have to stop at the stop line at a red light. At what point do we as licensed drivers feel that we are above the law or that our needs are more important than the safety of others around us?
Coming to a complete stop to check for pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles is expected every time. In fact, people’s lives depend on us to obey the law. Rear-end accidents because of yellow lights are due to inattentive drivers following too close.
If you get a ticket, pay the fine and thank your lucky stars that nobody was hurt due to your stupidity or selfishness.
>>>>Rear-end accidents because of yellow lights are due to inattentive drivers following too close<<<<
And THAT is why red light cameras are a problem for safe drivers. There wasn't a camera at the light where I was rear-ended because I stopped when I should have, but it cost me my car.
With red light cameras, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Most of the studies seem to agree with the federal analysis of hundreds of RLC’s, the decrease in T-bone crashes is mostly equaled by the increase in rear endings. But don’t applaud the small total accident decrease yet.
What they fail to point out is that RLC’s shift the burden of death, injury, damages, deductibles and premium hikes from the willfully negligent (the red light runners) and the obliviously negligent (the ‘I don’t have to look, green means safe’ folks) and onto the backs of those doing everything right, even when someone stops short in front of them (except for allowing a distracted fool to get behind them).
Whether enforced immorally by men, unconstitutionally by laws or anonymously by machines, I think punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty is just a spectacularly bad idea.
And shortening the yellows to increase revenue and decrease safety is unacceptable. The yellows are so short on South Hill now that you can enter the light doing 25 when traffic is moving slower than the posted speed(speed limit is 35), the light can turn yellow as you have entered the intersection and red before you get out the other side(you can see the timing by looking in your rear view also as you are clearing the intersection). Many municipalities throughout the country have been busted for making the yellows shorter than legally allowed. Google it, it’s awesome. Millions of dollars of illegal revenue collected by……………wait for it………your local governments. It is only about revenue, safety is a cover story that has its lid blown off once you realize they have also shortened the yellows(if they cared about safety, they would increase the yellows marginally)
Like anything else, people will try their best to get away with as much as possible. When something comes around that tries to change this behavior, it is demonized and made to sound “unconstitutional”. As this article says, one of the first things you learn when you take your driving test is to stop at the light and behind the line….not that hard.
If you follow the rules, then no camera will affect you. It’s really not that hard to follow basic driving instructions, like stopping on the line and braking on yellow. If people can’t follow these rules, they shouldn’t have a license. Any photo radar cameras save lives and make people more aware of what they are doing.
sloth78 – “…one of the first things you learn when you take your driving test is to stop at the light and behind the line….not that hard.”
And I’m pretty sure they added ‘…and any cars already stopped at the light.’
You wouldn’t think it’s rocket science, would you? But if you could please explain this simple traffic rule to the five people who’ve rear ended me in the last several years (and everyone else driving around with a similar level of awareness and competence) you could sure save me and a lot of other people considerable pain, time, money and inconvenience.
You may favor redistributing the roadway risk evenly among everyone (regardless of skill level, preparation, awareness, recklessness or intoxication) but some of us object to the state rewarding us for doing things correctly by intentionally placing us at greater risk (according to the studies) due to a sloppy ‘solution’ of arguable effectiveness (according to the studies) and questionable constitutionality (according to the law suits) that coincidentally happens to fill empty state coffers so effortlessly.
jdundas – “If you follow the rules, then no camera will affect you.”
Argue with the studies, they show that RLC’s increase the number of rear end collisions. If you use that intersection, your risk goes up. If you have some secret for keeping fools from driving behind you, we’d all like to know.
“It’s really not that hard to follow basic driving instructions, like stopping on the line and braking on yellow. If people can’t follow these rules, they shouldn’t have a license.”
If any of my five rear enders lost their license after hitting me, I’m not aware of it, and it didn’t save me a dollar of deductable or a single pain pill if they did.
“Any photo radar cameras save lives and make people more aware of what they are doing.”
Totally different subject, one that would require re-writing the RCW to extend our ‘absolute’ speed limit areas (currently only construction and school zones) to cover the entire state.
You seriously believe it’s a good idea to replace an officer who would (approvingly) watch you accelerate past a string of cars to pull into an open slot and let an emergency vehicle get past with a box that would photograph you doing 72 in a 65 and mail you a ticket?