I believe this discussion has taken a turn in the wrong direction. Nobody wants
anybody to run red lights and hit another vehicle, let alone injure another
person, be they driver or pedestrian. People, who intentionally run red lights,
do so without regard to others, as well as themselves. Front license plates and
cameras will not stop these people and they should be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law. Personally, I feel that if they guilty of gross negligence,
they should never drive again. All our major cities have adequate public
transportation to accommodate such people at a relatively inexpensive cost,
funded by law abiding tax payers, like you and me. For those people who
accidentally run red lights, a ticket or two may suffice in making them more
careful in the near term, but it does not guarantee that their attention span
will necessarily be improved in the future; cell phones, ipods, stereos,
makeup, passengers, smoking, drinking, being late, etc. will see
to that. Front plates and cameras are only a means to document their driving
behavior. Sadly, politicians dont have the balls to actually require people to
know how to drive, let alone take away their drivers license. Heck, here in
California we even give them away to non-citizens. Funny, how you have to
surrender your license from another state when you get a California license,
but you dont have to be a citizen of the United States. What a country?!!!
Several years ago I had dinner with a personal friend who was assistant chief
of police. When I asked him about red light cameras, he just chuckled. He said
his city spends about $250,000 per year for the maintenance of each camera
(private firm), which includes the laser range finder, the radar, the camera
equipment and film processing. The fines brought in about $750,000 a year for
each light. At the time they had 7 lights installed in the city for a total of
$3.5 million profit. My friend personally liked this, because the cameras run
24/7 and this freed up several traffic officers for other duties. I mentioned
to him that extending the time between the red light in one direction and the
green light in the other, would do much more for avoiding accidents in the
first place, whether people intentionally or unintentionally run the red light.
He whole heartedly agreed, but admitted it was all about the money.
Realistically, the time between lights should be extended in the interest of
public safety, whether there are cameras or not. Unfortunately, if that were
the case, it would take away the primary argument for red light cameras in the
first place. And politicians cant be seen as being soft on crime and uncaring
about public safety, especially when they can fatten the city coffers at the
same time. Its a win-win situation for almost all involved, except it doesnt
physically stop people from running red lights. I have also witnessed people
who panic and slam on their brakes, because its a camera controlled
intersection, when they could have easily made the yellow light. So it works
both ways. Luckily the rear enders are rarely life threatening, as opposed to
the red light runners.
So if your city wants to install red light cameras, make them extend the time
between red and green lights first and see what happens. It will take the wind
out of their sails. If they are really interested in public safety, it's the
quickest and easiest thing to do. Unfortunately, it will also take away their
financial return, so you'll have a hard time selling it, unless they do both.
Then they will naturally claim it was the cameras that solved the problem and
not the timing, but, of course, they will still get their (your) money, too.
GC
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
|