Re: But RLCs are for SAFETY!!!
MLOM
> http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-redlights,0,1973759.story
>
> L.A. Red Light Cameras Clicking for Safety or Revenue?
> By Rich Connell, Los Angeles Times
>
> May 19, 2008, 5:50 AM PDT
>
> L.A. Red Light Cameras Clicking for Safety or Revenue?
>
> Unlike some drivers facing fines, the 29-year-old homemaker had not
> risked a deadly broadside by sailing through a stop light -- the
> principal safety problem cameras were intended to address. Her $159
> citation came after she braked at a Manchester Avenue intersection,
> checked for cross traffic and made a right turn.
>
> "I looked to make sure," she said. "I wasn't being unsafe."
>
> In Los Angeles, officials estimate that 80% of red light camera
> tickets go not to those running through intersections but to drivers
> making rolling right turns, a Times review has found. As London
> realized that day in court, her turn was illegal because she did not
> completely stop before turning.
>
> "I've never . . . seen any studies that suggest red light cameras
> would be a good safety intervention to reduce right-turning
> accidents," said Mark Burkey, a researcher at North Carolina A&T State
> University who has studied photo enforcement collision patterns.
>
> Some county cities with photo enforcement opt not to target right
> turns. Others limit camera use for those citations.
>
> "We're kind of very leery about right turns. . . . They're not really
> unsafe per se," said Pasadena's senior traffic engineer, Norman
> Baculinao. Only one of that city's seven camera-equipped intersection
> approaches is set up to monitor right-turn violations, he said.
>
> "This is intended to be a traffic safety program. People who make
> right turns generally are going at a low speed," and resulting
> accidents tend to be a "sideswipe at most," he said.
>
> Emphasizing those violations, Baculinao said, would be "more for
> revenue generation" than safety.
>
> [...]
> --
> "Dave's not here, man!"
> - Tommy Chong
You know the drill...government-defined $afety trumps true safety.
gpsman
> http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-redlights,0,1973759.story
>
> L.A. Red Light Cameras Clicking for Safety or Revenue?
> By Rich Connell, Los Angeles Times
>
> May 19, 2008, 5:50 AM PDT
>
> L.A. Red Light Cameras Clicking for Safety or Revenue?
>
> Unlike some drivers facing fines, the 29-year-old homemaker had not
> risked a deadly broadside by sailing through a stop light -- the
> principal safety problem cameras were intended to address. Her $159
> citation came after she braked at a Manchester Avenue intersection,
> checked for cross traffic and made a right turn.
>
> "I looked to make sure," she said. "I wasn't being unsafe."
So... what difference could the 3 seconds to come to a complete stop
have made?
About $159, or $53 per second of time "saved".
Stop means stop, regardless of cross traffic, or your intended
direction of travel.
-----
- gpsman
Dave
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> So... what difference could the 3 seconds to come to a complete stop
> have made?
>
> About $159, or $53 per second of time "saved".
>
> Stop means stop, regardless of cross traffic, or your intended
> direction of travel.
I agree with you. But the article stated that ticketing right-turn drivers was more for revenue than for safety. I agree with THAT as well. -Dave
Ad absurdum per aspera
maneuver -- rolling a right-on-red.
"Right on red AFTER stop, WHEN safe, EXCEPT where prohibited" is
how I learned it, and AFAIK this is pretty common to states that have
right-on-red laws.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs16thru17.htm#traffic_lights (plain
language)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm (statute)
The risk to other cars may be smaller when you roll a right-on-red,
compared to running a red light straight through or in a left turn --
but small does not mean nonzero, and bicyclists and pedestrians have a
different opinion than other drivers.
Cheers,
--Joe