Zoltan Finks wrote: > Isn't the critical point that you *enter* the intersection (presumably > meaning either your the front-most point of your car, or your front wheels > - I'm not sure which - cross the white line on the closer side of the > intersection) before it turns red - rather than that you *clear* the > intersection (presumably meaning either the rear-most point of your car, or > the rear wheels - I'm not sure which - cross the white line on the far side > of the intersection)? >
I *think* I've heard that -- that the camera only activates if you enter the intersection after the light turns red. > Personally, I'm *for* red light cameras. Running lights has become an > everyday occurrence everywhere, and people are getting t-boned, or run down > if you're a pedestrian, because of it. > The problem is there's scant evidence that they actually reduce accidents. In some installations, accidents actually *increase*. (Although generally the *types* of accidents shift to include fewer T-bones and more rear-end collisions.) That feeds my suspicion that this is mainly about raising revenue without having to raise taxes, not about safety. In fact, the way the contract usually works is some private company installs and runs the cameras, in exchange for giving a percentage of the profits to the city. It also represents a slippery slope. In Britain they have speed cameras, some of which apparently have a tolerance as low as 3 mph over the limit. We're clearly headed that direction.
