Re: Cary red light cameras reduce crashes

On Jan 11, 1:14 am, bmw110...@xxxxxxxxxxx (1100GS_rider) wrote:
John Lansford <jlnsf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"A consultant hired by the camera system's private operator

There's the problem: no credibility.

None whatsoever. Note the "reporting" cites the numbers of citations
precisely, but complete omissions of any hard numbers of crashes in
favor of percentages.
http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/4281997/

The smell of horse*** wafts... but those provided statistical
differences may be attributable to the average "reporter" and "editor"
being college freshmen, both of whom were permitted to graduate HS
just to be rid of their stupid asses.

The other real problem is that crash rates mean little without a
comparison to deaths and injuries. More crashes/fewer deaths and
injuries and/or less severe injuries would constitute improvement.

But, few ever question a "news report", Geebus knows why.

Among the other problems with RLCs are government morons entering
contracts granting the vendor $4K per month per camera plus a
percentage after allowing themselves to be convinced by the vendor
that revenue from violations will rise then remain more or less
constant.

The average driver is exceptionally stupid (and a pretty shitty
driver), but not quite so stupid as to continue running red lights
when they're running fifty bucks a pop.

(Some if not many may disagree, citing $50 x 40 red light tickets next
month for 40 red lights blown this month constitutes no disincentive.)
----

- gpsman
.

Loading