Here in Northern Virginia, in at least a few jurisdictions, we will be getting stop-light enforcement cameras again to help catch drivers who run a red light. Since my wife was almost T-boned at an intersection a couple of years ago by a guy running a red light (a guy who passed by screaming and shaking his fist as if she had done something wrong!), it's been brought home to us how dangerous the practice can be.
I don't know if other states have these cameras - I assume so - they've been used successfully in Europe for years, but here in Virginia they have been ridiculously controversial. After a test period, the Virginia Assembly banned them in 2005, ostensibly because of statistics showing there were more rear-end accidents at intersections where the cameras were placed (though fewer of the side-on accidents which cause more injuries). The real reason, I suspect, is that there seem to be a lot of people who complained about the cameras, people who either believe they have a god-given right to run a light, or that it's not dangerous.
Anyway, in 2007, the Assembly had a change of heart (or a change of political composition) and re-allowed cameras. That is good news, but the approach is half-hearted. I hope over time some of these shortcomings can be corrected:
The fine is only $50 and the offense doesn't affect the driver's driving record. A new layer of bureaucracy has been introduced; local jurisdictions that want to install cameras have to get approval from the state Department of Transportation (VDOT) by submitting engineering analyses of each intersection where they want to install one. That means that the cameras are placed in fixed locations, which quickly become known, and if past practice is any guide, we'll also continue the inane practice of erecting signs telling everybody exactly where cameras are. I'm sure this fixed-location policy is responsible for many rear-end accidents recorded at camera intersections; people trying to run the red see them at the last minute, figure they'd better jam on the brakes, and get rear-ended. It makes folks cautious at some intersections, but doesn't make them less likely to run a light generally.
Though more serious fines and flexible camera placement would work better in the interest of public safety, halfway measures seem to be the order of the day (we're also getting a new law banning texting while driving, but not cell phone use). Politics is the art of the possible. Is that always because legislators disagree on the best way to address a problem, or because in some cases they don't seem to bother to understand what the problem is? It seems hardly possible that some proportion of our distinguished lawmakers have a soft spot in their hearts for those who run lights, but the evidence points that direction.
Comments