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

[peterw_diy]

Page A2 in the dead tree edition, Dana Milbank gripes about being ticketed for trying an Idaho Stop with his car. AAA is kind enough to give him some quotes, including declaring that automated camera citations are “not strictly or even marginally related to safety.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dcs-war-on-motorists/2014/09/15/47533112-3d18-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html

Topic

[consularrider]

@sjclaeys 94722 wrote:

i think that the Washington Post runs these pieces in order to increase clicks on the Bike Arlington Forum. Seems successful.

Works for me, this way I don’t have to read the WaPo articles. Maybe the Forum should sell advertising.

[PotomacCyclist]

Do we get a cut?

[baiskeli]

@acl 94698 wrote:

Yes. It would be. That is my point. You said

I’m saying, that’s exactly what the critics are saying. Thus, it does matter, and it is relevant.

I am overall in favor of speed or red light cameras, assuming they are actually used to decrease dangerous driving. But when government starts to use law enforcement primarily as a means of revenue creation, the results are not generally a net positive for the people who are supposed to be being served and protected, so it’s worthwhile paying attention to whether or not that’s what’s going on.

We don’t disagree at all. I’m not saying cameras are never designed to produce revenue in a way that can hurt safety, just that we can’t declare that they always are.

When I say it’s “not relevant,” I mean that in cases where cameras DO improve safety, the fact that they also produce revenue doesn’t matter, that’s all.

[baiskeli]

@sjclaeys 94701 wrote:

Here is an idea of putting speeding light revenue in a pot, which is then paid out through a lottery to those who follow the speed limit, thus creating both a deterrent to speed and an incentive to obey the speed limit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcaKocRXCB4. This also avoids the perception on behalf of the public and the temptation on behalf of the local government that such cameras are for revenue purposes.

Yeah, that’s another good way to do it.

[baiskeli]

@Terpfan 94704 wrote:

If you’re going to do speed cameras effectively then they have to be mobile otherwise they have zero value.

Depends on the situation – on some roads, there are certain spots where speeding – or running reds – is an acute issue. But I like the idea of mobile cameras.

My point is that if it enhances safety, it’s good. If it provides revenue at the same time, it doesn’t make it any less good.

[baiskeli]

@ShawnoftheDread 94708 wrote:

The point is they slow down for only a short period of time in a specific, pre-set location. The rest of the time it’s death or glory, full speed ahead. At least with LEO enforcement, the location of speed traps can be fairly random, thereby increasing compliance.

Sure, but that’s not about revenue.

The solution in that case seems to be mobile cameras.

[baiskeli]

@OneEighth 94719 wrote:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m going for a ride.

Don’t speed or run red lights – there are cameras out there.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 94714 wrote:

This is a favored tactic of the anti-speed-camera crowd. They call for enforcement only by cops, knowing full well that means significantly less enforcement and a better chance to speed without penalty.

Reminds me of the argument for making radar detectors legal: they make it easier for people to follow the speed limit.

[Author]

Replies