Report Proves RLCs Cause Rear-End Collisions

> Scott en Aztlán:
> http://www.extremezone.com/~hydeman/cp/finalreport.pdf

Very interesting reading indeed. Since you are doing the "x-no archive:
yes," thing again, I am leaving the link in my reply so that it gets
archived as this is something that is important to remember and (IMNSHO)
should be required reading for anyone who posts here.

And for those who think that traffic enforcement is about safety and not
revenue, I now officially say that you are full of ****.

necromancer wrote:
> > Scott en Aztlán:
> > http://www.extremezone.com/~hydeman/cp/finalreport.pdf
>
> Very interesting reading indeed. Since you are doing the "x-no archive:
> yes," thing again, I am leaving the link in my reply so that it gets
> archived as this is something that is important to remember and (IMNSHO)
> should be required reading for anyone who posts here.
>
> And for those who think that traffic enforcement is about safety and not
> revenue, I now officially say that you are full of ****.
-----
I think making an official declaration is a bit overkill... but I
admire your informality.

You're right and wrong and wrong. RLC's are about both protecting the
public and collecting enough revenue to make the expensive camera
systems pay for themselves. Traffic enforcement in general is about
catching and punishing those who violate traffic law... because
violating the law contributes to the lack of safety on our roads.

RLC's are stationary, uninvolved in traffic and incapable of "causing"
a crash any more than a stop sign or a girl walking along the street in
a bikini. To project the responsibility for a rear-end collision to an
object is more than just a little silly. The only drivers they
threaten with fines are inattentive dumbasses and the MFFY who believes
the light doesn't apply to them.

It seems more and more Americans have lost their sense of
responsibility. They violate traffic law and find a sense of
justification in "everybody else does it" or "speed limits are set too
low". They become involved in crashes and flee. There are not enough
cops to monitor all the criminal and dangerous behavior that occurs on
our roads.

Are you part of the problem?

Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
do. Or not.
-----

- gpsman

> gpsman:
> Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
> of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
> while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
> do. Or not.

Ok, I'm driving down the road toward an intersection that has one of
these cameras. The light turns yellow, and I'm in what the report
referred to as the "dilemma zone," or "the can't stop safely zone." I
have two choices: I can take my chances with the camera or I can slam on
the brakes. Guess what: I'm going to hit the brakes regardless of
whether I can stop safely or not. And if I get rear-ended, you can bet
that I will be holding both the driver that hit me and the company that
installed the camera responsible.

Of course, if the yellow light is set properly, there is no dilemma zone
or can't stop safely zone. That's what the operators of these cameras
are counting on when they tamper with the yellow lights to maximize
their revenue.

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
>> gpsman:
>> Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
>> of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
>> while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
>> do. Or not.

> Ok, I'm driving down the road toward an intersection that has one of
> these cameras. The light turns yellow, and I'm in what the report
> referred to as the "dilemma zone," or "the can't stop safely zone." I
> have two choices: I can take my chances with the camera or I can slam on
> the brakes. Guess what: I'm going to hit the brakes regardless of
> whether I can stop safely or not. And if I get rear-ended, you can bet
> that I will be holding both the driver that hit me and the company that
> installed the camera responsible.

Don't forget that in the "dilemma zone" you could slam on the brakes and
end up stopping in the intersection and still get a ticket even though
you nailed the brakes as hard as possible without skidding and were
driving the normal speed of traffic, or even the speed limit....

> Of course, if the yellow light is set properly, there is no dilemma zone
> or can't stop safely zone. That's what the operators of these cameras
> are counting on when they tamper with the yellow lights to maximize
> their revenue.

And they count on people like gpsman here and mr. anderson over in
chi.general and their simplistic law-is-the-law mentality and complete
trust in government to implement and get away with scams like RLCs. They
don't want to understand the finer points. I can only hope they get an
RLC ticket or three at such an intersection, because only personal
experience can be a teacher for them.

necromancer wrote:
> > gpsman:
> > Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
> > of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
> > while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
> > do. Or not.
>
> Ok, I'm driving down the road toward an intersection that has one of
> these cameras. The light turns yellow, and I'm in what the report
> referred to as the "dilemma zone," or "the can't stop safely zone."

There is no such thing as a "dilemma zone". Perhaps there is for
persons slow of thought and lead of foot, I don't know. In my 1M+
miles I've never experienced -one-.

> I have two choices: I can take my chances with the camera or I can slam on
> the brakes. Guess what: I'm going to hit the brakes regardless of
> whether I can stop safely or not. And if I get rear-ended, you can bet
> that I will be holding both the driver that hit me and the company that
> installed the camera responsible.

No you won't. But I would enjoy reading the tale of you ****ing away
$100K trying.

Any attempt to hold a government approved device responsible for a
crash that is *o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y* the fault of a driver will find you
on a loooong and fruitless search for competent legal representation.

Lemme point out something you may not be aware of: There are few, if
any, more powerful non-govenmental groups in DC than the insurance
industry. If RLC's were costing them money they'd be all over it like
Homer on a donut.

> Of course, if the yellow light is set properly, there is no dilemma zone
> or can't stop safely zone. That's what the operators of these cameras
> are counting on when they tamper with the yellow lights to maximize
> their revenue.

So stop on yellow. Problem solved.
-----

- gpsman

> Brent P:
> And they count on people like gpsman here and mr. anderson over in
> chi.general and their simplistic law-is-the-law mentality and complete
> trust in government to implement and get away with scams like RLCs.

I'm afraid that you are exactly right. People are accepting that
"whatever government says is right," and have lost the ability to think
for themselves and to question authority. RLC's are just a symptom of
the real problem. IIRC, this is the direction that nazi Germany went
down....

Brent P wrote: <brevity snip>
> Don't forget that in the "dilemma zone" you could slam on the brakes and
> end up stopping in the intersection and still get a ticket even though
> you nailed the brakes as hard as possible without skidding and were
> driving the normal speed of traffic, or even the speed limit....

Yes Mr. Obvious, no solution is perfect so let's concentrate on the
exceptions to the rules.

> > Of course, if the yellow light is set properly, there is no dilemma zone
> > or can't stop safely zone. That's what the operators of these cameras
> > are counting on when they tamper with the yellow lights to maximize
> > their revenue.
>
> And they count on people like gpsman here and mr. anderson over in
> chi.general and their simplistic law-is-the-law mentality and complete
> trust in government to implement and get away with scams like RLCs. They
> don't want to understand the finer points. I can only hope they get an
> RLC ticket or three at such an intersection, because only personal
> experience can be a teacher for them.

Duh. My "personal experience" of running a red light wasn't necessary.
I don't do it. I've -never- done it.

You, OTOH, keep whining about RLC's and speed limits and sloths and
LLB's and law enforcement when you're not preoccupied looking for
excuses and blaming everything and anybody but yourself for your poor
driving technique.

I... have absolutely no problems navigating the roadways and you feel
it's -me- in need of education?

Ha.
-----

- gpsman

In article . com>,
says...

>You're right and wrong and wrong. RLC's are about both protecting the
>public and collecting enough revenue to make the expensive camera
>systems pay for themselves.

No, the cameras are making enough revenue to give idiot politician more
money to spend and/or close their budget gaps. The mayor of Wash. DC
made it very clear he liked the cameras because of all the money they
generate.

>Traffic enforcement in general is about
>catching and punishing those who violate traffic law... because
>violating the law contributes to the lack of safety on our roads.

If the laws are properly set and the equipment is set up properly, then
you are correct. But often there are problems that should be addressed,
but they are simply ignored.

>RLC's are stationary, uninvolved in traffic and incapable of "causing"
>a crash any more than a stop sign or a girl walking along the street in
>a bikini.

At the same time, they are not the cure to the problem either. In fact
they do cause other problems. Often the cure to the problem is adjusting
the yellow light timing. The only reason that is not done more often
is that no money is to be made by doing that.

>To project the responsibility for a rear-end collision to an
>object is more than just a little silly. The only drivers they
>threaten with fines are inattentive dumbasses and the MFFY who believes
>the light doesn't apply to them.

Why institute RLC's when other solutions don't cause other problems?

>It seems more and more Americans have lost their sense of
>responsibility.

True. All the assholes in office see a way to look like they are doing
something for safetys sake when in reality they are just trying to generate
more money to spend on their pet projects. They hope that will get them
re-elected.

>They violate traffic law and find a sense of
>justification in "everybody else does it" or "speed limits are set too
>low".

If everyone is doing it, then the limits are set too low or the road is
poorly designed. Why blame the victims?

>They become involved in crashes and flee. There are not enough
>cops to monitor all the criminal and dangerous behavior that occurs on
>our roads.

This is exactly why you want to do things that prevent the crash in the first
place rather than try to punish the driver after the crash. RLC's are a
punish after the fact instead of a preventative measure.

>Are you part of the problem?

I'm doing my part by supporting the NMA who is hoping to fix the problem of
cities using RLC's for revenue generation.

>Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
>of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
>while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
>do. Or not.

I'm a safe driver and I have expectations that the folks in charge of road
maintenance and design also do their job properly so that every can safely
travel on the roads. Under posted roads and RLC's do not contribute to
safety.
----------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
>
> >You're right and wrong and wrong. RLC's are about both protecting the
> >public and collecting enough revenue to make the expensive camera
> >systems pay for themselves.
>
> No, the cameras are making enough revenue to give idiot politician more
> money to spend and/or close their budget gaps. The mayor of Wash. DC
> made it very clear he liked the cameras because of all the money they
> generate.

Ok. Let's assume RLC's sole purpose is revenue generation. What the
most simple, practical and easiest way to avoid being a contributor?

Wa-****ing-la. Problem solved.

> >Traffic enforcement in general is about
> >catching and punishing those who violate traffic law... because
> >violating the law contributes to the lack of safety on our roads.
>
> If the laws are properly set and the equipment is set up properly, then
> you are correct. But often there are problems that should be addressed,
> but they are simply ignored.

Well... WTF. The "perfect" solution is for drivers not to run red
lights.

But that ain't happening. The light itself is proving inadequate to
the task. I mean, really... what more -should- be required? Not
RLC's. But drivers aren't paying enough attention to their driving to
prevent themselves from running through a light and endangering and/or
injuring and/or killing cross-traffic and pedestrians. It may be an
imperfect solution but the perfect solution has failed... so we're on
to the next, less desirable solution.

> >RLC's are stationary, uninvolved in traffic and incapable of "causing"
> >a crash any more than a stop sign or a girl walking along the street in
> >a bikini.

> At the same time, they are not the cure to the problem either. In fact
> they do cause other problems. Often the cure to the problem is adjusting
> the yellow light timing. The only reason that is not done more often
> is that no money is to be made by doing that.

You missed the "objects not participating in traffic are not at fault
(and couldn't be considered at fault by the wildest stretch of the
imagination) in the event of a collision" premise.

> >To project the responsibility for a rear-end collision to an
> >object is more than just a little silly. The only drivers they
> >threaten with fines are inattentive dumbasses and the MFFY who believes
> >the light doesn't apply to them.
>
> Why institute RLC's when other solutions don't cause other problems?

Uh... you kinda failed to mention the "other" solutions". And the
RLC's don't cause other problems except for those who drive
inattentively.

> >It seems more and more Americans have lost their sense of
> >responsibility.
>
> True. All the assholes in office see a way to look like they are doing
> something for safetys sake when in reality they are just trying to generate
> more money to spend on their pet projects. They hope that will get them
> re-elected.

Seems kinda like a strategy of diminishing returns. The more people
fined via RLC the more ****ed off at the responsible politician more
people are going to be and, forgive my assuming... will vote for
someone else.

The problem with your theory is that relatively few people are caught
by RLC's because few people, relatively speaking, run red lights. Only
a nitwit would cite a rear-end collision as the fault of the camera.
If a nitwit slams on his brakes -at any point in time- the only person
that's going to have a collision with that nitwit is another nitwit.

Throw in a yellow or red light and a RLC and all you do is magnify the
nitwittiness.

> >They violate traffic law and find a sense of
> >justification in "everybody else does it" or "speed limits are set too
> >low".
>
> If everyone is doing it, then the limits are set too low or the road is
> poorly designed. Why blame the victims?

What victims? The law is the law. Violate it and risk being cited.
Remaining in compliance doesn't eliminate your chances of being cited
but I can't help but believe they're substantially reduced

> >They become involved in crashes and flee. There are not enough
> >cops to monitor all the criminal and dangerous behavior that occurs on
> >our roads.
>
> This is exactly why you want to do things that prevent the crash in the first
> place rather than try to punish the driver after the crash. RLC's are a
> punish after the fact instead of a preventative measure.

Huh? You'll have to explain that one to me.

The RLC will influence people to not run lights and prevent collisions.
There are habitual light runners who, every time they get away with it
are encouraged to do it again because, like a dog, they haven't
received any negative reinforcement. A crash is not required to be
cited via RLC.

> >Are you part of the problem?
>
> I'm doing my part by supporting the NMA who is hoping to fix the problem of
> cities using RLC's for revenue generation.

Good ****in' luck.

> >Your path is simple and clear. Obey the law and optimize your chances
> >of not contributing to the revenue generation machine. Pay attention
> >while driving and don't count on drivers to do what you think they will
> >do. Or not.
>
> Under posted roads and RLC's do not contribute to safety.

That statement is without logic.

If all roads were all posted at 15 mph and the fine was $1K plus $1K
for each previous conviction... wouldn't the roads be more safe? You'd
have a tough time killing anyone at that velocity.

If drivers simply obeyed the traffic laws in place fatalities would
plummet. But they won't. Because so many of them disregard safety
over some dumbass priority of "hurry".

Bad driving is the cause of your heartache and it's going to get
worse... and never going to get better. Might as well get used to it.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
says...
>>
>>
>>>You're right and wrong and wrong. RLC's are about both protecting the
>>>public and collecting enough revenue to make the expensive camera
>>>systems pay for themselves.
>>
>>No, the cameras are making enough revenue to give idiot politician more
>>money to spend and/or close their budget gaps. The mayor of Wash. DC
>>made it very clear he liked the cameras because of all the money they
>>generate.
>
>
> Ok. Let's assume RLC's sole purpose is revenue generation. What the
> most simple, practical and easiest way to avoid being a contributor?
>
> Wa-****ing-la. Problem solved.
>

Quite simply wrong. Those who are clued into the presence of the
cameras will slam on the brakes at the slightest hint of a yellow light,
and out-of-towners will slam into them from behind, expecting the locals
to go through the not-quite-yellow light. The solution to THAT problem
is properly timed yellow lights, which will also solve the problem of
red light running. Without cameras, I might add, although if they are
then implemented there's no real problem from the motorist's
perspective. But RLCs are ONLY safe if motorists have ironclad
assurance that yellow lights are properly timed and they won't be caught
in a trap, otherwise rear-enders WILL increase wherever RLC's are
implemented (whether or not the light is actually properly timed!)
Studies have proven this repeatedly.

When a motorist is forced to choose between forking over a couple
hundred bucks to the court, or a couple hundred bucks to his insurance
company, it's a no-win situation (unless you're a court or an insurance
company.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel