WaPo: new writer & "war on motorists" (guest starring AAA)

[jabberwocky]

I actually completely agree that automated cameras have almost nothing to do with safety. They are purely revenue generation.

[dplasters]

@jabberwocky 94574 wrote:

I actually completely agree that automated cameras have almost nothing to do with safety. They are purely revenue generation.

I tend to agree. I think it is possible to use them for increased safety, but that is not typically how they are sold. I also don’t really have any sympathy for the drivers anyway. DC should probably have a commuter tax/tolls to help defer the cost of all the non residents using its infrastructure. I see the cameras as an easier to sell/legal alternative. The downside being that the cameras also increase pain on the city’s residents.

Strangely, he admits to violating the law both times involving the cameras (and many of the comments note the danger of rolling right on red to pedestrians). Then buries the real injustice – which appears to be the DC parking authority. But that isn’t nearly as sexy as cameras I guess.

[Terpfan]

@jabberwocky 94574 wrote:

I actually completely agree that automated cameras have almost nothing to do with safety. They are purely revenue generation.

Ditto on the camera opinion.

I did see a whole slue of police at the intersection of doom area. They were pulling over motorists left and right. That was awesome.

[baiskeli]

@jabberwocky 94574 wrote:

I actually completely agree that automated cameras have almost nothing to do with safety. They are purely revenue generation.

In general, I think any enforcement of a safety law makes us safer. People who might run a red light will think twice when they know there’s a camera there, especially if they’ve been caught before. And the cameras probably free up police to enforce other safety laws.

If they cameras happen to generate revenue too, good. I’m glad when people who violate safety rules have to pay for it and contribute to paying for further enforcement.

[peterw_diy]

@baiskeli 94578 wrote:

In general, I think any enforcement of a safety law makes us safer. People who might run a red light will think twice when they know there’s a camera there, especially if they’ve been caught before. And the cameras probably free up police to enforce other safety laws

+1 Another benefit of the automated cameras as they can be placed in areas where pulling a driver over to issue a citation is not possible. Imagine a two lane residential road where speeding is a problem. Where are you going to put the cop to use a radar gun? Where is the cop going to pull someone over?

[lordofthemark]

As someone who, with my neighbors, would have liked a speed camera in our part of Fairfax (but couldn’t have it because Va law) I can assure you my motivation was safety, not revenue. In the case of DC, if people in DC object that they are about revenue, they should lobby to have the revenue put in a dedicated fund for safety improvements. Instead I just hear calls to have less cameras. And most of the objection is from people who do not live in DC, AFAICT.

[lordofthemark]

“But we’ve got these cameras that are ticketing you for going an inch over the stop line, or making a rolling right on red”

Note to Milbank and Anderson. Making a right on red at ALL is a concession to driver convenience and efficiency over safety. It was not legal in the US before the 1973 energy crisis, and is not legal in most European countries AFAIK (and its not legal in NYC) It is particularly a problem in a dense city like DC with lots of pedestrians. And it is only legal if you make a FULL stop first.

Milbank, instead of paying his fine, should be sentenced to write column explaining how things that are in fact illegal are not enforced and are considered socially normative because they are not very dangerous, and most people being drivers know that. He should then further explain how Idaho stops by cyclists are similar, but are not seen that way by non-cyclists, because they do not understand the cyclists’ perspective. He should use all his skills as a columnist to drive the point home. Then he should go for a ride with Courtland Milloy.

[jabberwocky]

It always sort of amuses me how blase cyclists can be about laws that affect them (running stop signs, lights, etc) but turn into THE LAW IS THE LAW types when it comes to other people.

Put it this way: would we be supportive of a camera setup at a stop sign on the W&OD that mailed a ticket to every cyclist who didn’t come to a complete stop and put a foot down before proceeding? I think we would probably bitch and moan about that even more than the AAA complains about automated cameras.

[mikoglaces]

@jabberwocky 94590 wrote:

Put it this way: would we be supportive of a camera setup at a stop sign on the W&OD that mailed a ticket to every cyclist who didn’t come to a complete stop and put a foot down before proceeding? I think we would probably bitch and moan about that even more than the AAA complains about automated cameras.

We would. I get tired of the so-called “war on cars.” But I think the columnist had a point about how hard it is to fight tickets, and how tickets are not always justified. At least parking tickets. I’ve had some where the signs are so confusing I thought I’d parked legally.

[jrenaut]

@jabberwocky 94590 wrote:

would we be supportive of a camera setup at a stop sign on the W&OD that mailed a ticket to every cyclist who didn’t come to a complete stop and put a foot down before proceeding?

I get your point, and generally agree, but I would support this if they did the same for the car stop signs. Although I don’t ride trails much during my commute, so it wouldn’t affect me as much as those of you who do.

[jrenaut]

@mikoglaces 94592 wrote:

We would. I get tired of the so-called “war on cars.” But I think the columnist had a point about how hard it is to fight tickets, and how tickets are not always justified. At least parking tickets. I’ve had some where the signs are so confusing I thought I’d parked legally.

To be fair, it should be really hard to fight a ticket when you admit in a globally published newspaper that you were breaking the law and deserved the tickets.

And contesting a parking ticket in DC is super easy, you can do the whole thing online. I believe my record now is 12-2 (And at least one of those two I was definitely parked illegally, forgot to move the car before the spot was restricted at 9am).

[Raymo853]

@jabberwocky 94574 wrote:

I actually completely agree that automated cameras have almost nothing to do with safety. They are purely revenue generation.

I know neither the politicians taking legal bribes from the companies running such systems nor those companies themselves are concerned about safety over revenue generation. Regardless I still want the cameras. I see the speed, traffic light and yes even stop sign, cameras as having a safety benefit. Slowing cars down, keeping people from running lights, blocking the box, etc. makes driving and bike riding safer. Yes not in every single variable (ex. rear end collisions at traffic lights) but overall yes.

[baiskeli]

@jabberwocky 94590 wrote:

It always sort of amuses me how blase cyclists can be about laws that affect them (running stop signs, lights, etc) but turn into THE LAW IS THE LAW types when it comes to other people.

Put it this way: would we be supportive of a camera setup at a stop sign on the W&OD that mailed a ticket to every cyclist who didn’t come to a complete stop and put a foot down before proceeding? I think we would probably bitch and moan about that even more than the AAA complains about automated cameras.

It’s unfortunate if the cameras catch everyone no matter how minor the violation as Milbank claims, but if red light running is a big safety problem, then I think catching a few close calls is worth it. And to me, that would apply to cyclists too. So yeah, if there was a busy intersection where cyclists were frequently running a stop, causing a safety hazard, and they put a camera there and cyclists got caught somehow even for not putting their feet down, that would be worth it to me (I’d want a sign up that would warn cyclists that the foot has to go down though).

So I would turn your statement around – if we bitch and moan about cars breaking the law and endangering us, we have to put the same expectations on ourselves.

The real problem here isn’t enforcement, it’s the limitations of the technology. A camera has no wiggle room to decide that a violation isn’t worth ticketing like a real cop would. I’d like to know how many camera tickets are “real” violations and how many are technical, but inconsequential, ones.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 94590 wrote:

It always sort of amuses me how blase cyclists can be about laws that affect them (running stop signs, lights, etc) but turn into THE LAW IS THE LAW types when it comes to other people.

Put it this way: would we be supportive of a camera setup at a stop sign on the W&OD that mailed a ticket to every cyclist who didn’t come to a complete stop and put a foot down before proceeding? I think we would probably bitch and moan about that even more than the AAA complains about automated cameras.

I’m pretty sure that most cyclists aren’t so stupid/hypocritical as you make them out to be. I’m pretty sure that many cyclists advocate for an idaho-style stop in which a cyclist always yields to the traffic with the right of way, but argue that coming to a complete stop adds no value. The logic here being that if I slowly drift into a pedestrian I’m going to look (and feel) like an idiot but there’s probably not going to be any real harm. (Modulo exceptional cases like extremely frail people.) In reality, it’s also extremely unlikely that a cyclist rolling slowly and looking around will actually fail to notice and avoid the pedestrian in the first place (who wants to run into anything, including a pedestrian–the cyclist is also likely to get hurt). The situation is simply different in a car. Slowly rolling over someone will kill or maim them–the car is heavier than a bike and the law should take that into account as much as does common sense. It’s also harder to be observant as a motorist–in a relatively sound-proof box which generates background noise and has blind spots. The motorist also simply lacks the self-preservation instinct of the cyclist. If the motorist slow-rolls over someone they might be sad about it, but they aren’t actually going to be hurt. The only thing that can hurt the motorist is a driver-side impact by another car. So if you watch carefully at intersections (especially right turn on red) you’ll see drivers staring at oncoming cars to judge when it’s safe to dart out. (Cyclists are much more likely to keep looking all around, because danger is everywhere.) Maybe when I see a documented case of a fatality caused by a cyclist slow-rolling over someone I’ll be more inclined to think you’ve got a real point. Until then it seems like you are trivializing the issue and drawing false equivalencies for some unclear reason. Maybe because you think traffic safety is amusing?

As far as increased enforcement of the stop signs on the W&OD, yeah, that would piss people off. The root reason being that they are placed badly, with no accounting for the characteristics of any particular crossing, under a policy that has a blanket prohibition on an unobstructed pedestrian/cyclist right of way due to particular biases at NVRPA, and which serve no safety purpose. (That is, the signs themselves are a problem even more than the level of enforcement but increased enforcement would fan the flames.)

[mstone]

@jrenaut 94596 wrote:

And contesting a parking ticket in DC is super easy, you can do the whole thing online. I believe my record now is 12-2 (And at least one of those two I was definitely parked illegally, forgot to move the car before the spot was restricted at 9am).

So why did you fight the ticket?

[Author]

Posts