Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CAMERAS: Only offenders complain

Letter by Mike Stewart, Graham on May 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm with 5 Comments »
May 23, 2011 12:56 pm

The people who are against the traffic cameras are the ones who try to cheat the signal and get caught. If they obey the signal, there is no reason to complain.

Lights prevent T-bone accidents, which are one of the more serious on the roads. Instead of trying to beat the system, try following the rules and help save a life as lights are intended to do.

Who knows? One day it may be your own or someone you love. If indeed this is a money-making scheme as many suggest, it’s a small price to pay to save a life.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. Rollo_Tomassi says:

    Nope. I’m a red light camera complainer who has never been caught and charged by one. When technology is used as a revenue enhancer, as some communities do, I am and will remain opposed. Red light cameras that have shortened yellow light cycles are an offense to the public and should be legislatively banned.

  2. penumbrage says:

    Same here, I simply object to being placed at greater risk when I’m doing things correctly. Since extended yellows increase safety for everyone using the intersection and the major RLC studies show the T-bone accident reductions come with a 50% to 70% increase in rear end collisions, it’s a no brainer for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, handicapped and everyone else not getting a cut of the cash on it’s way out of the state.

  3. slugoxyz says:

    You guys are just making stuff up! You want facts? I have tons of facts. They’re pouring out of my fingers right now. I have researched 22 studies from around the world. I have invested hours and hours to this subject! Nobody around here is shortening yellow light sequences. You’re just pushing that yellow to the limit. It just seems quicker because you keep jumping it further and further out. I’m getting tired of people spewing their crap without any real hard facts to back it up. And please do NOT quote the National Motorists Association. It’s an official name for a bunch of crazy law breakers. They want an end to speed limits for crying out loud! Go time the yellows in Lakewood. Shut up and go time them. I have. You shouldn’t talk about something that you are just theorizing about. Go time them! You don’t need any scientific stopwatch. Just grab a basic stopwatch. The same that they use at track meets or swim meets. Put up or shut up time!

    penum- you state an increase of 50-70%? I’ve read all the studies and the largest percentage I could find was in the 1995 Australian Road Research Board which is generally the most universally flawed methodology, spotty data without any scientific methodology. Their % was 15% increase in RE collisions. Not 70. So, before you write a number like that. Let me know where you got it. If it’s from the NMA I’m laughing my butt off. Maccubbin 2001 study indicated a 29.5% reduction in RE collisions. Basically, everyone stated an overall reduction in injurious accidents. Even the studies that indicated a small increase of RE collisions showed a dramatic reduction in injurious accidents and property damage. So, please! Give me facts so I can kick you around some more.

  4. penumbrage says:

    slugoxyz – Lets look at a neutral study like USDOT (so we can argue the issue instead of the sources).
    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/
    Reduction in right angle crashes: 379
    Increase in rear end crashes: 375
    Reduction in right angle definite injury crashes: 55
    Increase in rear end definite injury crashes: 32
    Percent decrease in right angle definite injury crashes: 15.7
    Percent increase in rear end definite injury crashes (in spite of far better automotive occupant protection front/rear vs side) : 24%
    Let me reword that.
    Installing RLC’s will cause a reduction in T-bone accidents almost equaled by the increase in rear end collisions, and to protect the criminally negligent red light runners and the obliviously negligent who proceed without checking traffic, the law abiding drivers using that intersection will become 14.9% more likely to be involved in an accident and 24% more likely to be injured.
    When the alternative of extending yellow cycles can make EVERYONE safer at a cost of a few seconds per commute, I repeat: It’s a no brainer.
    Germany, with it’s ‘irresponsibly dangerous’ unlimited speed zones has 12% fewer highway fatalities per capita than the US – it’s amazing what comes of taking driving seriously, demanding personal responsibility and not passing laws that put the majority at extra risk to protect people for whom road safety just isn’t very important.

  5. penumbrage says:

    slugoxyz – On reread, I could have been clearer, ‘come with’ is too vague and imprecise.
    I should have said ‘the major RLC studies show the increase in the number of rear end collisions equals between 50% and 70% of the total decrease in the number of T-bone accidents,’
    There’s hardly any gain, and what gain exists is paid for by greater risk to innocent citizens.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0