SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the but-they-do-work-to-raise-ticket-income dept.
Red-light cameras don't reduce the number of traffic accidents or injuries at intersections where the devices are installed, according a new analysis by Case Western Reserve University.
Touted by supporters as a way increase public safety by ticketing drivers who continue through red lights, the cameras actually shift traffic patterns: More drivers tend to brake harder and more abruptly, increasing fender-benders and other so-called "non-angle" collisions.
"Once drivers knew about the cameras, they appeared to accept a higher accident risk from slamming on their brakes at yellow lights to avoid an expensive traffic citation—thereby decreasing safety for themselves and other drivers," said Justin Gallagher, an assistant professor of economics at Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve.
Accidents didn't decrease, only shift.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 20 2018, @12:56PM (1 child)
...and one additional point: LAWS MUST EXIST FOR A REASON!
If the person proposing a law claims the reason for doing so is to improve public safety, and that law can be proven to NOT improve public safety, then that law should be repealed. Just saying "That's the law so we're stuck with it forever and we should just do as it says" is not a legitimate argument in any nation with any form of representative or democratic government. The law must exist for a reason, and if the reason sucks then the law also sucks and should be revoked. If the reason they give in public is different from the reason they give in private, then the law is a scam and should be revoked. This is not E=mc^2, this is not some immutable law of physics...we must always question every law and ensure it is actually in the best interests of the people that it is supposed to represent, and if it is not we must rescind that law. And in fact our founders have even provided explicit mechanisms into the structure of our government which are intended to allow us to flagrantly ignore a law that we find to be unjust. That's one of the reasons why you have a right to a jury of your peers in a criminal trial -- look up "jury nullification". If the jury thinks your guilty, but they don't agree with the law you're accused of violating, then they have every right to vote you innocent. That's the system working as intended. The right to ignore crappy laws is itself part of the law that you feel we must always obey.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think "Stop at a red light" is a crappy law, but "install right light cameras" absolutely is, because it does not accomplish the stated goal and it has been shown to be very frequently abused by criminals.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 20 2018, @01:55PM
That is an excellent proposal.
In 21st century democracy, in the Second American Republic (and next iteration of other democracies), laws must include sunset provisions, such that once their purpose has been fulfilled, or they have failed to meet their goals, then they automatically get archived and scrubbed from the books.
Imagine the cruft that would eliminate! It would make things much more transparent to the people who are supposed to understand and obey laws, too.
As a humble addendum to your proposal, each law should clearly report who wins and which politician's cousin is getting rich from the sweetheart deal wrapped up in the fine print.
Washington DC delenda est.