|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Motorists always seem to be at odds with law enforcement, whether it's the laws themselves or the methods used to enforce them. Red light cameras have been installed around the nation as a method of mitigating dangerous behavior at intersections (as opposed to parking a cop near a light, away from more useful duties). Using Internet maps, some people would go out of their way to either avoid or alter their behavior around lights featuring cameras. Others, from the University of South Florida, do research hoping to get rid of them. Their findings conclude motorists actually get into more accidents around red light cameras as a result of drivers acting abruptly to avoid the photographic fines.
Add a Comment (7)
Email This
Message Author
In my country, speed cameras are preceded by signs with a special symbol, which everyone knows to mean 'speed camera ahead'.
Drivers can reduce their speed in good time, to the legal limit or below, and thereby avoid getting fined.
I've got to say, though, it seems odd people brake suddenly for red light cameras; one would think you would only run a red light if you could see clearly around the junction so you knew it was safe. If your visibility is that good, surely you would see the camera, and if your visibility wasn't that good, surely you would reduce your speed until it was?
i think u are giving people in general way too much credit...
an alternative that has been suggested is to have a brief period in which all lights would remain red to hopefully avoid t-bones or such...
Just curious - which country?
I remember Korea has speed cameras mounted all over the MSRs although only some of them worked. You just had to watch for the sudden slowdown in traffic as the locals know which ones are live. Orrrrr you just drove so fast that the camera didn't catch you. The problem Korea had was the cameras faced oncoming traffic instead of catching you as you passed. So enough speed was enough to close the distance and make your license plate unreadable - I know because the only ticket I ever got was for going somewhere around 10~15kph over instead of the typical 60kph over at the same point.
El Paso had them mounted but not calibrated, so they didn't take pictures but randomly flashed. Pretty typical of American South West culture in my limited south west experience. Good idea, half-executed. It's pretty hot down there, I suppose that has alot to do with it. I noticed the same thing in Ireland. Alot of half-completed road projects. For instance, when they joined the EU, they were to completely transfer to the metric system. They put up KPH road signs, next to the MPH road signs, and never took down the MPH signs. Maybe it was to get people used to it. Maybe I'm rambling.
Local law enforcement is truly something you can do something about. It is run by the local city counsel or city board of directors. You can go to the meetings they have, voice your concerns and vote the locals out easily if they don't 'hear' what their constituents are saying. These are not federal programs; they are local. For your everyday life, you actually have more power than you think. City ordinances, or guidelines if you will, can be controlled. Government is the enforcing of laws with the consent of the general populace. If you take away your consent, you take away the power. Attend those city meetings. Make your voice heard. Control your destiny where you can. Be a responsive citizen. Local voting is more important than you may think.
RSS
not about safety by jandaman :: NR5 :: on 18 March 2008
a lot of studies show that a considerable amount of more accidents are occuring because motorists are slamming ont heir breaks trying to avoid getting a ticket...
researchers in california found that Lockheed Martin (the maker of many red light cameras in california) was receiving $70 for every ticket issued. research also showed how a single intersection in san diego earned the city over $3 Million in REVENUE.
at this point, it seems like a lot of struggling cities are using the safety issue as a means to fatten their coffers...
a wise man once said "it's all about the benjamins baby..." and then he shot tupac... ;)
RE: not about safety by Occams :: NR6 :: on 22 March 2008
If it were really about safety then it would be easy to remove any doubt by making the revenues raised go to some federal fund that would further raise safety by improving road infrastructure - with a percentage siphoned of to enable the purchase of more cameras.
It would be very telling to see the county losing interest in more cameras because there was no financial return.
The worst policy would be to outsource the camera service in the way that is suggested by the Lockheed Martin example.