Traffic Cameras In DC
Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:57am
 |
  16 years
|
Starting Feb 1 traffic cameras will begin reporting drivers who block intersections, roll thru stop signs, fail to yield to pedestrians, pass thru an intersection at an unsafe speed, or take an oversize truck or bus on a street too small to accommodate it. Rolling thru the stop sign $50, all the rest $250.
This reported today in the Washington Post.
Another example of the District Govt raising 100's of millions in revenue.
Fred
Sounds good to me
Starting Feb 1 traffic cameras will begin reporting drivers who block intersections, roll thru stop signs, fail to yield to pedestrians, pass thru an intersection at an unsafe speed, or take an oversize truck or bus on a street too small to accommodate it. Rolling thru the stop sign $50, all the rest $250.
...
Except for, perhaps, the "roll thru stop signs", these are traffic violations that should be curbed.
I don't know about you, but I try to avoid blocking intersections. I try to watch for and yield to pedestrians. I am often petrified I will be forced into the ditch on a particular road I use as a shortcut which is too narrow for trucks bigger than a pickup.
I am noticing more and more how drivers have learned how to take advantage of the "2 second all-red" and blow through red lights - entering an intersection a second after their light has turned red.
They know they are breaking the law. I would be interested in how they would justify their actions to someone who asked why they did it. Likely they were late and in a hurry.
Probably the same reason why someone enters an intersection when they know that they will not be able to clear it before the opposing traffic is given the right-of-way. "I need to get somewhere and can't wait another 2 minutes."
These same people will get bent out of shape when someone blocks them.
if you know DC government
that is purely for revenue purpose.
Ok by me
[If you know DC Government] that is purely for revenue purpose.
Enforcing traffic laws generates revenue but it generates that revenue from those who have broken the law.
In my opinion this is a good thing.
Argue all you want about whether or not the "government" in question should eliminate waste, trim the fat, etc., when it comes to getting more revenue, I prefer it come from people who, for the most part, broke the law and knew they were breaking the law.
the scope
[If you know DC Government] that is purely for revenue purpose.
Enforcing traffic laws generates revenue but it generates that revenue from those who have broken the law.
In my opinion this is a good thing.
Argue all you want about whether or not the "government" in question should eliminate waste, trim the fat, etc., when it comes to getting more revenue, I prefer it come from people who, for the most part, broke the law and knew they were breaking the law.
I have no intention to make this topic to a "government" level. What I do not want to see is, if I receive a citation for "unsafe" speed, I will think if it is worthy to spend hours to argue (what the unsafe speed is) in court, or just mail out a check..
That's cheap, out here in
That's cheap, out here in California a traffic camera ticket will cost you $500 plus traffic classes.
In Other News
if you know DC government, that is purely for revenue purpose.
In other news, water's wet.