Hard to Put Red-Light Violations Under a Lens

I really like what you said. Anyone who is for this type of government, probably works for the government.

One other point, something that many on a site like this should automatically realize: RLCs are a bigger problem for those towing trailers, especially in unfamiliar areas. You can never be sure if you have enough time for the back of your trailer to clear the intersection before the cameras/flashes are tripped.

This is something that the "red means stop" people out there don't seem to consider (not surprisingly).

This is something I forgot to mention in my previous posts, but it's also a complaint I've routinely heard from other people who tow trailers.

Thanks.

As I mentioned before, my retort to municipalities that install RLCs is this: if your intersections are that dangerous, I sure don't want drive through them. It just seems much too risky to me.

And if the drivers in those areas are that dangerous in intersections, a pedestrian wouldn't stand a chance. It would be far too risky to actually get out of my car and walk from a parking lot to one of the stores in the area where the RLCs are.

If instead of the drivers being so dangerous that they'd run over me the moment I stepped into the crosswalk (which last time I checked don't have citation-issuing cameras yet)... if it's the intersections that are dangerous by design, then they need to rework the intersections to make them safer, and stop pretending that devices that take pictures of accidents will somehow prevent accidents.

@GoneNomad

Once again, you are using words to obscure the facts.

What was discussed just prior to these comments included the fact that Virginia has a .5 second grace period BY LAW. That is far from "zero". There is tolerance by the government BY LAW.

Now, let's determine exactly who is watching you and me and try to make a judgment as to how big a role "government" has in this.

My cellphone can determine where I have been, as can my credit card company which know not only where I was but what I bought. Internet providers can track where I have browsed. The list goes on. Why do you think that the "government" has to turn to private enterprise to subpoena information when major crimes has been permitted? Did you see the pictures from security cams of Christopher Dorner while the police were hunting him? Surely you wanted that to happen?

Parking lots have security cameras. Most stores have security cameras. Do you watch yourself on the security cameras of fast food restaurants while you are ordering? The doors of the administrative buildings of my church have security cameras, even.

Why is this, one wonders? Well, some people believe that their "freedom" allows them to treat rules and laws as merely suggestions. When this happens, we are not "free" - we are hostage to those who flaunt the laws.

Let's turn this around for you and Twix.

What amount of "tolerance" would you like to see?

While it's great that Virginia law provides a half second grace period, plenty of other areas do not. I would say most other areas do not, but why don't you check that out?

No, I am using reality to refute naïve beliefs, in this case, yours.

While people often DO try to "squeak through" the intersection at the tail end of a line of cars (i.e.: "just one more"), these people are not the problem. As for the ones that are, I will say it one more time: a driver who plows though an intersection in a way that could cause an accident will not be dissuaded by a camera any more that he will be by the prospect of death or serious injury. These drivers do pose a serious problem. But we need to strike the root, not go after one of the branches. the root cause, for all non-insane, non-impaired drivers who do this, is that they are not paying attention, they are not taking driving as seriously as they need to. Having cameras everywhere does not change that. It's almost analogous to the fact (yes, fact) that some of the cities with the most stringent restrictions on firearms, also have some of the highest death rates by firearms. Since you seem to like to look stuff up so much, compare Chicago to Dallas in this respect.

While it's great that Virginia law provides a half second grace period, no matter how many times you use ALL CAPS to say it, plenty of other areas do not, as I already pointed out.

About the same judgement as a typical traffic cop might make, something analogous to the "Reasonable Man Doctrine" that is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. (also search on: "Reasonable person").

In this case I'll call it the "Reasonable Cop Doctrine." And this is what reasonable citizens can reasonably expect from law enforcement officers most of the time (though all too often they don't get it).

Whether or not a "Reasonable Cop" acts the way he does because he's reasonable or not isn't the issue, just that he does. I'd be the first to suppose that he acts that way partly because he's a bit lazy, and doesn't bother citing very minor infractions because he feels it's not worth bothering with. On the other hand, a RLC makes no such judgement call, and that is how they alter the balance that has long existed previously. IMO, this is a fundamental problem.

Unless a "Reasonable Cop" has some other reason, or is using the traffic stop as a pretext to search for something else, he is unlikely to pull somebody over for most of the infractions that RLCs issue citations for. The proliferation of RLCs have altered this defacto standard. And that's something the "red means stop" crowd won't admit.

About the only exception to this is cases of intersections that have chronic problems with drivers who don't clear the intersections (due to traffic jams), which leave people stranded (stuck) in the intersection because the line of traffic stops moving. I've seen cops stationed to issue tickets in cases like this, and even these are somewhat questionable in my mind, especially if the driver is not a local driver who didn't have any reason to suspect the traffic was going to stop, leaving him stranded. But problem intersections like these are usually marked as such. The primary goal of the governing body is not to collect more revenue (labor is expensive), but to help the traffic flow.

RLCs tip the economic balance far more in favor of revenue generation, and cash-strapped municipalities are all for that. If it was about traffic safety, they'd station cops at the problem intersections, to catch the most egregious violators for more than a non-moving violation.

People who don't create an obvious hazard don't deserve a citation, and in the real world (before naive absolutists), that's pretty much how it worked.

The bulk (maybe not 90%, but far more than half) of RLC citations are to motorists who would not have received a citation from a "Reasonable Cop." RLCs may be promoted for traffic safety, and they may or may not have some benefit in that respect (though if the WSJ article is correct, the aggregate number of collisions of all types has increased after RLCs were installed), but the main reason they are so popular is that they are automatic revenue generators for the municipalities. Take that away, and watch them go bye-bye.

How's that for being turned around?
But of course you won't admit that it has been.

Some people fail to understand that life is not fair, nor perfect, nor perfectly fair, and it never will be, and there are sometimes mitigating circumstances. An example of this is the case I cited where someone has a trailer in tow. You'll probably argue that they shouldn't pass into an intersection if they can't be sure they will clear it before the yellow light ends. But trailers not fully clearing an intersection before the yellow light ends are not a significant cause of traffic fatalities, yet that's an example of something that gets swept up by a zero-tolerance mindset and automated enforcement.

Pretend for a moment that you are willing to consider another point of view, in this case that it is the inattentive drivers who are the real problem, and everywhere they drive, not just in intersections. Also pretend you can accept the reality that drivers who are impaired due to drugs, illness, etc. have essentially the same condition, inattentiveness, but with a different cause than someone who is distracted, which is a condition that can end almost immediately (whereas a someone who is drunk takes a while to sober up).

So if it is desired to devise a solution to the real problem (inattentive drivers), why not do this:

An enforcement effort intended to crack down on people who are not watching where they are going would be the obvious solution. Patrol officers could simply watch for people who are looking elsewhere (usually down) while driving.

But since this would be a labor intensive solution, let me propose an alternative that might be viable and more cost-effective.

Install real-time cameras in every vehicle to monitor the driver, to make sure they are keeping their eyes on the road, at least most of the time.
Also install a device to capture real-time telemetry from the OBD port (similar to those offered by some insurance companies, except with a real-time data uplink).
All this data will be transmitted in real-time to a central collection center, where it will be processed by sophisticated software to determine whether or not drivers were sufficiently attentive. A suitable degree of "leniency" or "grace period" will be programmed into this system. Drivers who fail to remain sufficiently attentive - who fail to keep their eyes on the road enough - will automatically receive citations in the mail. They will be classified as non-moving violations to help encourage public acceptance of this program.
Some people will probably suggest that you can't tell if someone is attentive just by where they are looking. Some people daydream with their eyes pointed forward. Proponents of this system will point out that no system is perfect, but they will also propose future extensions that add an interactive element ("auto-nagger") to make sure the driver isn't daydreaming.
Some other people will object to this system as being an infringement upon 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Proponents of this system will point out that these cameras observe nothing that a police officer driving in an adjacent lane could not see. Proponents also claim that none of the data captured by these systems will be retained permanently, and that the data will be protected by the highest security. Those who oppose it will point out the numerous examples of where both of those turn out not to be the case.

So tell me, if a system like I've described above were shown to (maybe) reduce traffic accidents/fatalities, would you have any objection to it?

________________________________________

The bottom line is that no matter how many posts, how many hours are wasted, this thread ends up like just about every other stupid thread like this ends up: everybody still has the same beliefs they had when they started, but x amount of hours have been wasted on pointless argument disguised as "discussion."

P.S. (re: Virginia's half second grace period): In case you've still missed it the last several times I stated this, here it is again:

While it's great that Virginia law provides a half second grace period, no matter how many times you use ALL CAPS to say it, plenty of other areas do not, as I already pointed out.
______________________________________

Feel free to waste your time if you want. Or summarily declare yourself the winner if you want.
I'm done.

I am a liberal. I would be too happy to see the day when laws were for the purpose of operational consistency and no one did anything that would harm anyone else so that we no longer needed law enforcement. All the BS about freedom being the excuse to oppose RLCs and laws outlawing automatic assault weapons in the hands of the public is just that, BS.
If ppl turned out 98% to vote, maybe we could be a country of government BY the ppl. But NO, there is an excuse for not voting also. We need to go back to the 1700s so ppl can appreciate what freedom is all about.

If we need laws, then I am in full support of anything that make enforcement more efficient. The SOB that runs a red light needs to be stopped. Period.
And yes I was caught once also - a distraction rather than an intentional action, but I deserved it.
The evidence was very clear. Fortunately, there was no accident. -- Which could hardly be called an accident if it had occurred.

Sure. That's what insurance companies do to justify raising the cost of car insurance when you get a speeding ticket. Studies commissioned by the insurance companies stated that those who speed are more likely to get into accidents.

Problem is when the Registry data went public it turned out there's no relationship between speeding and accidents. Speed doesn't cause accidents, it is the difference in speeds that cause accidents. And that elderly woman with blue hair is doing 10mph below the speed limit when she sideswipes your car at the intersection.