traffic cameras as enforcement

[javasaurus]

News item on WTOP today:

Apparently a lot of people are upset about red-light and speeding cameras. Personally, I don't see the problem -- don't run red lights, and don't speed, and you don't get fined. But people are making the claim that the cameras are overly invasive, somehow invading privacy. What privacy? You're on a public road, in a situation where if a cop was there, he wouldn't be invading your privacy by pulling you over, right? So why is the camera more invasive than a cop?

What really got me was the woman they interviewed who said (I paraphrase): There are some laws where if they don't catch you, it shouldn't be illegal.
Well, lady, you were caught.

Sigh...

I know there are issues regarding who gets the money from the fines, and some other issues regarding administration of the cameras. But I just don't get why people feel they have the right to break certain laws.

Comments

Re:

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Are the lights shown in the pictures (i.e. in the same frame)?

My problems with the camera's is that it is said that a lot of them are at intersections that have yellow's that are shorter than recommended (length of yellow is supposed to have minimum time based on speed limit of road, slope of road approaching the light, and width of intersection). They also inflate their stats (look at the decreased number of accidents within the intersection ... does ANYONE look at the accident rates just outside the intersection?).

I also have been known to run a light in order to avoid being plowed into by an idiot behind me who was GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LIGHT come what may. I also go vs. no-go based on the actual driving conditions (even if I am going slowly due to ice, I will go through an intersection instead of risking a spin).

I do wish, however, that more people would make a decision as they approach a light about the Go/No Go point on the road (if the light turns before I reach that tree, I can safely stop, otherwise, I don't think I can) instead of waiting until the light turns, trying to decide and giving off some really mixed signals to the traffic around them (esp. those turning right on red).Y

Re:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Yes, in the tickets I saw, the lights were clearly visible and clearly red.

As for yellow light times, there is a national standard. If you feel the light is short-timing the yellow, you should make a note of it and send the info to the local or state authorities. Chances are, however, that the light is not short-timed.

As for avoiding a rear-ender, you gotta make the call. If you think he's going to hit you, and you'd rather get the ticket than get rear-ended, then also get the a**hole's licence. If you receive a ticket, he'll probably also get one, and there will be a photo-record of how close he was behind you, and at what speed. But with a properly timed light, and if you are at a legal speed, you should be able to slow down safely, and so should the rear-ender.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

short-time is relative. yes, there's the NTSB's ratings, but then there's the local community (jersey lights are generally longer), and there's the history of the intersection.

sure, a yellow light can be shorter than it used to be and still be compliant, but shortening it is an effective way of trapping those who are used to the original light's length and catching more money in the initial months of the installation (all to make the camera "look good" when the police or council want to give a self-congradulatory "hey, look what we've done already" press statement).