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

[Anonymous]

@baiskeli 94624 wrote:

I don’t think it matters.

Unless the critics are saying that the cameras are placed or timed in a way that catches lots of people who would never get ticketed by a human cop (like a speed trap in the case of human cops in small towns chasing revenue from those passing through) it’s not really relevant. If real safety violators are caught, I’m happy that the city makes a little money off of it (which will be spent for public benefit anyway).

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=red+light+camera+shortened+yellow&gbv=2&oq=red+light+camera+short&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0j0i22i30.1669.6021.0.8299.24.15.0.4.4.0.374.1310.0j3j2j1.6.0….0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..14.10.1358.VD34hgVUt54

If and where this is true, it would probably *decrease* safety.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 94630 wrote:

I’ve received exactly one camera ticket in my life. It was years ago on Connecticut Ave in Kensington. It’s rush hour, pouring rain, and I was slowing down realizing the light would turn yellow then red shortly. I checked my rear view mirror to see a dump truck barreling down behind me and realize there is no chance we’re both stopping. I ran it at like a whopping 10mph and paid the $75 or whatever it was.

Sometimes running the light is the safer alternative.

This kind of anecdote is trotted out a lot. The reality is that the risk of injury of you is almost zero in that sort of rear-end scenario, but the risk you potentially transferred to someone else was pretty high. Yeah, the red light cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end collisions. Property damage. They are also associated with a decrease in fatalities. In general, the easy trotting out of the “it’s safer to run the red” scenario is a way to justify the normalization of not even trying to stop at the red light by at least one or two cars at every light cycle. The real solution to the rear ending problem is for everyone to slow down and to normalize the expectation that people will stop at an intersection.

FWIW, I’m happy to be rear ended rather than transfer the risk. I’ve actually been hit from behind 3 times (most recently because I unexpectedly stopped at a right turn on red). If the property damage is great enough the other guy fixes it or buys you a new car. The most recent one I just looked at it, shook my head, and wrote it off (just scratches). There’s no way I could have seen a pedestrian at that particular intersection without stopping and looking. It’s also one of the side-road detours for the fairfax county parkway. Most people don’t stop at that right turn on red, which I guess is why the other guy was so surprised. Hilariously, the entitled motorists get a green arrow cycle there also. You do not want to be a pedestrian there, it’s a 2 minute wait before you legally play frogger.

[baiskeli]

@acl 94631 wrote:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=red+light+camera+shortened+yellow&gbv=2&oq=red+light+camera+short&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0j0i22i30.1669.6021.0.8299.24.15.0.4.4.0.374.1310.0j3j2j1.6.0….0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..14.10.1358.VD34hgVUt54

If and where this is true, it would probably *decrease* safety.

Yes, that would be a pretty obvious speed trap designed for revenue.

[dkel]

@dasgeh 94610 wrote:

More of a quibble, but there’s not legal requirement to put a foot down, just to stop.

You’re obviously better at track stands than I am! :rolleyes:

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 94610 wrote:

I strongly disagree. Cars should be held to a higher standard than other road users because they have a much, much, much higher propensity to kill and seriously injure. They are heavy hunks of metal propelled by a powerful motor. (They also are heavily subsidized by the rest of us, but that’s a peripheral argument).

I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t, just that I’m willing to be held to whatever standard is necessary, including whatever would happen if cameras were involved.

This wasn’t in your comment, but it has been in others: I strongly believe that enforcement actions should be tailored to the dangers posed by the road users. Find where one group is endangering another, and fix that. I doubt you’ll end up enforcing much around stop signs on the W&OD.

I agree – it was a hypothetical only.

More of a quibble, but there’s not legal requirement to put a foot down, just to stop.

Good to know, though I can see a judge saying “if you didn’t put your foot down how did you stop?”

[Terpfan]

@mstone 94637 wrote:

This kind of anecdote is trotted out a lot. The reality is that the risk of injury of you is almost zero in that sort of rear-end scenario, but the risk you potentially transferred to someone else was pretty high. Yeah, the red light cameras are associated with an increase in rear-end collisions. Property damage. They are also associated with a decrease in fatalities. In general, the easy trotting out of the “it’s safer to run the red” scenario is a way to justify the normalization of not even trying to stop at the red light by at least one or two cars at every light cycle. The real solution to the rear ending problem is for everyone to slow down and to normalize the expectation that people will stop at an intersection.

FWIW, I’m happy to be rear ended rather than transfer the risk. I’ve actually been hit from behind 3 times (most recently because I unexpectedly stopped at a right turn on red). If the property damage is great enough the other guy fixes it or buys you a new car. The most recent one I just looked at it, shook my head, and wrote it off (just scratches). There’s no way I could have seen a pedestrian at that particular intersection without stopping and looking. It’s also one of the side-road detours for the fairfax county parkway. Most people don’t stop at that right turn on red, which I guess is why the other guy was so surprised. Hilariously, the entitled motorists get a green arrow cycle there also. You do not want to be a pedestrian there, it’s a 2 minute wait before you legally play frogger.

I understand the concept, but I also believe in those limited situations that a motorist, cyclist, or other road user can assess the risk and make the appropriate decision. In my case, at Knowles Ave, it’s easy to see the other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. I don’t regret the decision because a loaded down dump truck can actually inflict injury in a rear-end scenario. Another situation of assessing the risk is moving out of the way for an emergency vehicle. These sort of situations are far from the norm, but insisting the way of the camera is always the safest is not an accurate statement.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@baiskeli 94646 wrote:

I wasn’t saying they shouldn’t, just that I’m willing to be held to whatever standard is necessary, including whatever would happen if cameras were involved.

I agree – it was a hypothetical only.

Good to know, though I can see a judge saying “if you didn’t put your foot down how did you stop?”

That’s why whenever I contest a ticket I bring my bike to the courtroom and trackstand while making my oral argument.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

As a driver too, I don’t mind cameras. I get it. They change behavior towards the safer.

In my case I got a speed camera ticket from Maryland for going above 55 mph in an I-95 construction zone…at 11:00 pm on Christmas night. I was more than miffed since there were a total of zero construction workers out on freaking Christmas. I didn’t like it, but I paid the fine, because yep, I did it. And ever since then, no matter what time of day or night, you know how fast I drive in any construction zone on any interstate in all of Maryland? 55 mph or whatever the posted speed limit says.

Cause, effect.

[baiskeli]

@Brendan von Buckingham 94652 wrote:

That’s why whenever I contest a ticket I bring my bike to the courtroom and trackstand while making my oral argument.

…which is exactly what I imagined doing! Then I remembered that I can’t trackstand.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 94649 wrote:

I understand the concept, but I also believe in those limited situations that a motorist, cyclist, or other road user can assess the risk and make the appropriate decision. In my case, at Knowles Ave, it’s easy to see the other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. I don’t regret the decision because a loaded down dump truck can actually inflict injury in a rear-end scenario. Another situation of assessing the risk is moving out of the way for an emergency vehicle. These sort of situations are far from the norm, but insisting the way of the camera is always the safest is not an accurate statement.

Here’s the thing: I don’t think there are many cases where someone gets killed that the other guy says “I didn’t think I was assessing the risk and making the appropriate decision”. People are, as a rule, really bad at assessing risk. I’d much rather have a camera there giving everybody a fine if they’re in the intersection after the light is red because, for whatever reason, people seem to weigh that more in assessing risk than they weigh the chance of killing/being killed. So if there’s a chance of a small fine, they’ll stop. Whatever works.

Ideally there would just be continuous video capture and you could point to the ambulance. I am sure that would represent a negligible number of cases.

[Terpfan]

@mstone 94662 wrote:

Here’s the thing: I don’t think there are many cases where someone gets killed that the other guy says “I didn’t think I was assessing the risk and making the appropriate decision”. People are, as a rule, really bad at assessing risk. I’d much rather have a camera there giving everybody a fine if they’re in the intersection after the light is red because, for whatever reason, people seem to weigh that more in assessing risk than they weigh the chance of killing/being killed. So if there’s a chance of a small fine, they’ll stop. Whatever works.

Ideally there would just be continuous video capture and you could point to the ambulance. I am sure that would represent a negligible number of cases.

If it’s all about assessing risk then why don’t we have have devices in cars to regulate speed that are tied to the maximum speed limits of roads? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist. We wouldn’t need speed cameras then. Ditto for a cheap breathalyzer. There can always be an emergency button you press if you must speed to a hospital or race away from some crazy nefarious activity against you. Alas, we don’t have those rules. This leads me to believe there no finite line between safety and revenue.

As for assessing risk, isn’t driving itself an ongoing act of assessing risk? I mean, presumably you have to merge, change lanes, estimate appropriate following/stooping distance, yield as appropriate, make left turns, et cetera. But I’m sure everyone would say they made the appropriate decision. A police officer would presumably be able to differentiate it. With a camera, you get three photos entire of your car. Unless you preemptively have video recording of your vehicle, it’s almost impossible to prove you made a decision for a valid reason. The burden is shifted entirely upon you. It reminds me of cycling accidents to an extent. Unless you have video proof of the idiot things drivers do, the police always seem to presume no fault among either driver or cyclist. The burden is upon the cyclist to prove they were the injured party.

[baiskeli]

@Terpfan 94672 wrote:

If it’s all about assessing risk then why don’t we have have devices in cars to regulate speed that are tied to the maximum speed limits of roads? It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist. We wouldn’t need speed cameras then. Ditto for a cheap breathalyzer. There can always be an emergency button you press if you must speed to a hospital or race away from some crazy nefarious activity against you. Alas, we don’t have those rules. This leads me to believe there no finite line between safety and revenue.

You can’t conclude that we don’t have those rules just so that government can collect revenue from people who break rules. That’s a stretch.

We don’t have those rules because this technology hasn’t been around long, would cost money to implement, and most important would drive most Americans crazy over the level of control the government would be imposing on them. It’s not a conspiracy to create rules that the government can take money from people for breaking. The government can already take money from us in taxes without going through all that.

[Terpfan]

@baiskeli 94674 wrote:

You can’t conclude that we don’t have those rules just so that government can collect revenue from people who break rules. That’s a stretch.

We don’t have those rules because this technology hasn’t been around long, would cost money to implement, and most important would drive most Americans crazy over the level of control the government would be imposing on them. It’s not a conspiracy to create rules that the government can take money from people for breaking. The government can already take money from us in taxes without going through all that.

I can’t conclude it’s for revenue, but you can conclude these automated traffic control devices are for safety?

The technology and cost arguments are bunk. All new vehicles will require a backup camera a little over two years from now. The standard backup camera assembly for a vehicle costs more than ignition interlock device and the actual use in cars is far newer than IID. So it’s safety checked by people’s desire for safety?

Sure the government could tax you more, but that will draw a lot of unpopular ire. That’s why so many state and local governments will nickel and dime you with fees, assessment modifications, et cetera. Few people notice when you phase in a fee increase to say an angler’s licenses.

I don’t doubt some camera emplacements are driven by safety; however, after asking one friend who works in local government if it was about the money, he replied, of course, why do you think they’re on X Rd (I’ll leave his workplace off as I don’t think he would appreciate being directly associated with the quote). He then proceeded to say, but that enables them to spend more money on roadway improvements, city events, police, etc.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 94678 wrote:

I can’t conclude it’s for revenue, but you can conclude these automated traffic control devices are for safety?

The technology and cost arguments are bunk. All new vehicles will require a backup camera a little over two years from now. The standard backup camera assembly for a vehicle costs more than ignition interlock device and the actual use in cars is far newer than IID. So it’s safety checked by people’s desire for safety?

Sure the government could tax you more, but that will draw a lot of unpopular ire. That’s why so many state and local governments will nickel and dime you with fees, assessment modifications, et cetera. Few people notice when you phase in a fee increase to say an angler’s licenses.

I don’t doubt some camera emplacements are driven by safety; however, after asking one friend who works in local government if it was about the money, he replied, of course, why do you think they’re on X Rd (I’ll leave his workplace off as I don’t think he would appreciate being directly associated with the quote). He then proceeded to say, but that enables them to spend more money on roadway improvements, city events, police, etc.

requiring additional safety equipment is done nationally, by NTSA, not by individual localities (for reasons I would think are obvious.) It tends to be controversial, balancing as it does cost vs safety. To add a speed governor, which A. could be hacked B. Would have to deal with multiple different limits, some adjoining each other, or in intersections between streets with different limits C. Would have to allow for not only emergencies like going to a hospital, but briefly speeding up to pass, etc would, be, I think impossible.

It certainly is not evidence that a jurisdiction like DC is in it for the money. Though I am not sure why its so terrible to get money from people who are violating the law and endangering others. If you don’t like DC’s policy, you should contact your CM.

[mstone]

@Terpfan 94678 wrote:

The technology and cost arguments are bunk. All new vehicles will require a backup camera a little over two years from now. The standard backup camera assembly for a vehicle costs more than ignition interlock device and the actual use in cars is far newer than IID. So it’s safety checked by people’s desire for safety?[/quote]

You’re somewhat incoherent here but I’ll try to guess. The backup cameras were already well on their way to becoming standard due to demand (like ABS brakes). They have proven to be fairly effective at preventing people from getting run over. They also compensate for the automakers’ desire to do funky things on the back end for style or aerodynamic reasons.

As far as cost, I assure you that the cost of a backup camera is orders of magnitude less than the cost of instituting automatic speed control over 3.9 million miles of roads.

It’s depressing that as a country we can’t even talk about enforcing basic safety laws due to the level of anti-government rhetoric.

[Author]

Posts