1) Yes, driver attention is critical. Data suggest that the greatest single threat to drivers' attention is cellphone usage -- including hands-free phones. I hope you would support a strong law against that.
2) Speed has been shown to be a huge factor in traffic accidents. It's pretty darn hard to enforce that without requiring drivers to know the speed limit and watch their speedometers. And running traffic lights causes some horrendous accidents; how do you propose controlling major intersections without requiring motorists to watch for lights?
3) Sure, it's bad policy to shorten yellow lights for the purpose of raising revenue. But there's a tradeoff between yellow light time -- and therefore safety -- and traffic efficiency: Long yellow lights mean less traffic flow. If our only goal is safety regardless of traffic flow, we'd not only have longer yellow lights, we'd also reduce speed limits, reduce the number of lanes, eliminate uncontrolled intersections, etc.
4) I love the fact that you're looking to Europe for best practices of anything. This is truly a new era in SoundPolitics.
5) I thought the Republicans were the party of law and order.
It looks to me that you're nervous because you like to speed and run red lights -- and I confess I feel the same about speeding -- so you're digging deep for ridiculous rationalizations of your law-breaking.
Posted by Bruce at November 14, 2009 10:07 AMThis has been going on for at least 5 years.
For the sake of traffic those in charge should realize that not all cars are new with race car brakes.
Older vehicles, vehicles towing trailers, and trucks need more time to stop safely than the current yellow light times allow.
Oh wait a minute... those in charge would rather I just did not drive a personal vehicle... So none of this really matters... It IS really all about gaining revenue from those who refuse to go along with their no car planning.
Punishment for failure to comply.
Posted by daveo at November 14, 2009 10:35 AMSpeed can be controlled with road engineering, studies have shown that people will drive at the speed the road is configured to allow. Lane width, painted line length & spacing, crowning, asphalt condition all work together to cause rational drivers to self limit (irrational drivers will ignore engineering features just as much as they ignore speed limit signs)
Posted by MadRocketScientist at November 14, 2009 11:01 AMI was not there long enough to see if these things were done in only certain circumstances, but I did like the general idea. I did not like the roundabouts in England. In many areas I saw, they had to put in traffic signals. If they did not, then only vehicles from the major road would even be able to enter.
The idea of shortening yellow lights is stupid. Many vehicles will not be able to stop in time. Sure, it makes for more revenue -- but it does so at the expense of safety. As for lenghthening the time, there is a limit as to how long a yellow can be, or people will just keep rolling though them.
I did not like the roundabouts in England. In many areas I saw, they had to put in traffic signals. If they did not, then only vehicles from the major road would even be able to enter.
Many neighborhood streets in Seattle are purposefully narrow and have roundabouts. Our blocks are close to each other and most corridors are two-way and have on-street parking. We have many crosswalks. All of these things increase driver awareness and calm traffic without fines. But, separately, red-light cameras have led to a real decrease in accidents at certain intersections.
It would be unwise to rely solely on red-light cameras, but that isn't the reality in much of the city.
You say that enforcing the law should lead to safety and not revenues -- but the reality is that sometimes it does both. In a recession, I'd rather they get revenues to balance the budget from drivers who are endangering lives than by a general tax.
Posted by John Jensen at November 14, 2009 01:10 PMMy vehicle meets all of the safety requirements of any vehicle made in 1969. Currently vehicles made on or before 1969 are still legal to drive on OUR roads.
Having an older slower vehicle necessitates being a more aware driver than most who can zip right up to a light and stop on a dime.
I am of the belief that everyone should be made to drive an old underpowered car at least once so that they can appreciate the power and capabilities of the vehicle that they are (sometimes nonchalantly) in control of.
It teaches one to REALLY leave room, to REALLY pay attention to other drivers. To really understand how not everyone can go or stop as fast as you.
Bruce is a car hater and probably a light rail advocate.
Posted by daveo at November 14, 2009 01:19 PMIt should always be remembered, that vigilance should remain constant because, Government will serve itself first and foremost before it serves the Society that is paying the bills.
http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/messages/boards/thread/7496696
Posted by Banphotoradar at November 14, 2009 02:51 PMTells you that Government is not out to solve problems or protect the citizens, it's out to feed itself and provide for its own employees!
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 14, 2009 03:07 PMYou are a Troll.
Who said I do not drive my vintage vehicle safely?
Certainly not me.
fast yellow lights are a problem. The only reason they have been sped up is to increase revenue. If it is for traffic flow efficiency then the traffic planners have made a mistake assuming all vehicles are driven by drives as safe and alert as I must be to drive an old car.
Yes Bruce, an old car in like new operating condition.
You don't like it for some other reason?
Like maybe you are an anti car nazi?
Not only are Republicans the party of law and order, they are also the party of individual freedom and common sense.
Posted by daveo at November 14, 2009 03:11 PMDaveo, you should probably be able to stop your vehicle. If not, you should drive slower when approaching stoplights so you don't break the law. I found your earlier post about how your car performs differently from newer ones to be interesting, but I also note that all of society cannot be delayed because a handful of older models exist. If your party is the one of "common sense," exercise it.
You say the only reason yellow light timing was sped up was for "revenues" but I find that assertion questionable? Has anyone provided any evidence that yellow light timing has changed at all, or even specifically because of red light cameras? We only have six of those cameras in the city.
Posted by John Jensen at November 14, 2009 04:16 PMThus the premise that speed is unsafe is questionable. Obviously the guy doing 55 in a 30 is unsafe and should be ticketed. But the guy doing 35 in a 30...not so much.
Posted by travis t at November 14, 2009 05:12 PMI'm sick of people who blast by me at 50mph on city streets were the limit is 30. I'm all for cracking down on these selfish jerks. Never imagined I would agree with Nick Licata about anything. Busting people who drive recklessly? I'm all for it.
Posted by Bill Cruchon at November 14, 2009 06:21 PMSpeeding down city streets is a lot different than speeding down a highway. City streets are not grade separated; stops are frequent; interaction with bicyclists, pedestrians including children, and cars driving in different directions is common; and much more attention is required. In most cases, the best thing to do for city streets is to calm traffic as much as possible. Highways are a completely different issue. I do think that speed vans on highways would be ridiculous.
Posted by John Jensen at November 14, 2009 06:27 PMSeems like many conservatives here just like to whine and feel victimized!
Posted by demo kid at November 14, 2009 06:31 PMRed light cameras would only be allowed as part of a comprehensive traffic flow plan. The use of red light cameras to be banned at intersections that use on demand traffic signals.
So many cities think the cure to people running lights is to put up red light cameras. They fail to see that their own incompetence has led to the problem. It is time to make them actually do their jobs to manage traffic flow and not just generate revenue.
Posted by Vince at November 14, 2009 07:14 PMIf you are a responsible driver you maintain your vehicle you don't have the least problem stopping. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me guess,, those of us who own vintage automobiles will be your next targets. My wife and I haven't had a crash with any of our vehicles in years (knock on wood) but my liberal neighbors have cars that are routinely dented up .
Posted by Bill Cruchon at November 14, 2009 07:19 PMIf you are a responsible driver you maintain your vehicle you don't have the least problem stopping. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Let me guess,, those of us who own vintage automobiles will be your next targets. My wife and I haven't had a crash with any of our vehicles in years (knock on wood) but my liberal neighbors have cars that are routinely dented up .
Posted by Bill Cruchon at November 14, 2009 07:19 PMObviously there are lots of narrow Seattle streets where even going over 20 is dangerous. But if Seattle installs cameras on Aurora to pop people going 3-5 mph over the limit, it will bring in a ton of revenue but not enhance safety. Likewise, for example, 50th St between I-5 and Greenlake. I used to live near there--it is a 4 lane street and to go 3-5 mph over the limit is not a safety issue, depending on weather, time of day, etc.
We all agree that going 50mph down a side street is unsafe and deserves a ticket. Somehow I doubt that Licata has in mind going after such drivers, because there aren't enough of them to produce revenue.
Posted by travis t at November 14, 2009 08:44 PMI guess I should spell it out clearly again.
My vehicle, if driven in the manner that most people drive their newer cars, would not be able to stop in time when approaching a light in say a 40 mph zone, which turns yellow for a very short time.
Of course I know the limitations of my vehicle and must drive accordingly.
I have no interest in endangering myself, others, or especially my vehicle.
YES, I HAVE TO DRIVE SO THAT I CAN AND DO STOP SAFELY!
YES, I HAVE TO LEAVE MORE ROOM WHEN FOLLOWING!
I'm just saying that the yellows are indeed shorter and it is especially noticeable when you have to pay extra attention due to driving a car that requires FULL ATTENTION to every aspect of driving.
Clearly we are a target of the politically correct.
Clearly I have to adjust my driving style to fit safely into todays environment.
My bad if I thought that went without saying.
BTW have noticed the photo speed trap recently set up in Tacoma westbound on River Road where the road turns just east of the EQC?
There is a speed reduction to 25 from a 50 zone with a radar detector and two cameras right behind it.
Posted by daveo at November 14, 2009 09:49 PMThat's for the first offense. For the second offense, they should confiscate both the cell phone and the vehicle, and the tab should be $500.
Posted by ivan at November 15, 2009 08:37 AMIt's worth noting that the definition of "aggressive drivers" tends to begin with drivers who pass on the right. From this, one can conclude that there is never an aggressive driver without their first being a left lane bandit.
WA is about the 7th state I've lived in. The all time worst episode of lame driving I witnessed was outside Atlanta, where a driver who realized she missed her lane at the 8-lane-wide I-75/I-85 split stopped and put her turn signal on. The remaining top-ten bad driver experiences have been here. I think it's evenly split between self-righteous Suburu drivers doing 5-under in the left lane, those drivers who can't find their rearview mirrors, or those too stupid to know where they're supposed to drive. (When I used to frequent I-5 near Canada at night, I found that I could at least scare left-lane bandits to the right by approaching at 100 mph because they simply saw headlights rapidly getting large. Hehe, I miss that car...)
Yes, the yellow light on Denny at Boren (I think it's Boren) is perilously short, and yes, it has a slot machine at it.
Posted by SeattleSam at November 15, 2009 09:16 AMIt's worth noting that the definition of "aggressive drivers" tends to begin with drivers who pass on the right. From this, one can conclude that there is never an aggressive driver without their first being a left lane bandit.
WA is about the 7th state I've lived in. The all time worst episode of lame driving I witnessed was outside Atlanta, where a driver who realized she missed her lane at the 8-lane-wide I-75/I-85 split stopped and put her turn signal on. The remaining top-ten bad driver experiences have been here. I think it's evenly split between self-righteous Suburu drivers doing 5-under in the left lane, those drivers who can't find their rearview mirrors, or those too stupid to know where they're supposed to drive. (When I used to frequent I-5 near Canada at night, I found that I could at least scare left-lane bandits to the right by approaching at 100 mph because they simply saw headlights rapidly getting large. Hehe, I miss that car...)
Yes, the yellow light on Denny at Boren (I think it's Boren) is perilously short, and yes, it has a slot machine at it.
Posted by SeattleSam at November 15, 2009 09:17 AMIf you drive too slowly, you are also subject to a citation.
You might be headed to precinct if you don't have proof of insurance or a valid operator's license.
Bicycle operators, on the other hand, are forgiven for weaving through traffic with no lights, no helmet, no vehicle license, drunk or high, no operator's license and no safety skills other than being able to balance on two wobbly wheels.
And yet they share the roads with "equal" (?) rights
The City Council has already written legislation to increase the penalty on automobile drivers who clip a bicyclist blowing through an intersection, wearing black and no helmet.
Bicyclists already have "superior" un-deserved rights here in Seattle.
Watch this situation get even more lopsided with our new Mayor. Check out his bicycle. It has a 1000 watt electric motor.
Posted by Bart Cannon at November 15, 2009 11:19 AMSeattleites, if you miss your exit, just keep going. Eventually you will be able to turn around and backtrack.
Posted by travis t at November 15, 2009 02:07 PMAnother example of how government kills.
Simple solution. Kick the cameras out, and increase the yellow light times with an appropriate pause before the light goes green in the opposite direction. Short yellows cause people to speed up to beat the light.
Light timing should never be allowed to be manipulated by third parties. And government should never be allowed to collude with business to increase its coffers.
Posted by Jeff B. at November 15, 2009 03:51 PMYou people are exercising confirmation bias without any evidence. I would be right there on your side if I was confident that people had actual data to back their claims. I used to drive on Denny and pass Boren every single day. I live near Broadway and Pine. Both of these intersections have cameras. Neither seems to have shorter yellows than your average streetlight.
Posted by John Jensen at November 15, 2009 08:21 PMI welcome all efforts to make folks slow down and pay attention. Go Nick!!!
Speed is under-blamed for traffic fatalities.
In the book Traffic Safety, traffic safety expert Leonard Evans claims speed increases traffic fatalities by the fourth power.
He credits Mothers Against Drunk Driving with saving about 9000 lives a year, he suggests a hypothetical Mothers Against Speeding could save at least as many more.
Ironically, an alchohol-loving guy I knew once told me that he always makes sure not to ever drive slow when he's drunk, so he won't be spotted by the cops and subjected to the harsh DUI laws--there's a perverse outcome for you.
By the way, quite a few great posts on Sound Politics these days.
Cheers,
new left conservative
Traffic enforcement is there for a reason and I don't think it's a bad thing to make our roads safer.
If stepping up enforcement captures more lawbreakers and also replaces a stupid and regressive tax, that's a good thing.
No, the constant excessive badgering, mugging and stealing from the Citizenry while exercising their lawful Right to move Freely in a Free Society is an Abomination. The parasite filled Government will work every game they can think of to increase revenue/stealing for themselves to expand/grow and gain greater power over their Subjects. That's Right...We are subjects Not, Citizens in their Eyes. The Truth is...Government doesn't want the people to more freely in private vehicles at the Citizen's convenience or time schedules. They want a totally captured Society forced to ride Government Conveyances/Buses and pay whatever Fee for the privledge of access. Such a Deal!
As an after thought...Are you and demo the same person?
Twist it around in your mind how you want - this is being done not to make people safer, but to enrich the coffers of Government. Straight from Licata's mouth.
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 16, 2009 09:48 AMThe reason this isn't being done now is because the state prevents speed vans outside of school zones. There would have to be a change in law. Yes, that change leads to more revenues. It also leads to more speed enforcement, which leads to safer city streets.
Posted by John Jensen at November 16, 2009 10:55 AMOr because you're very stupid and dense: "No one goes to Seattle because too many people go there."
We have plenty of people who shop in Seattle. Our business district is the envy of every city in the region. Sorry, you can't break traffic laws in Seattle. You are not entitled to break the speed limit just because you're a conservative.
Posted by John Jensen at November 16, 2009 12:49 PMHere's a way: if you're caught speeding in a restricted zone (like a school) you have to go to a 4 hour class on how to drive safely. Or you lose your license for 30 days. No fines to the Government, and arguably a better deterrent than just a fine.
You're trying to make excuses. This is a revenue grab, pure and simple. The sponsor of the plan even states as much, never once mentions its for safety. Yet you and your fellow Slavers try to spin it as such.
Licata simply wants more tax dollars. And this is one way he can do it. Using police as revenue generators rather than safety officers.
You want to slow people down on roads? No problem - speed bumps are cheap and work really well. But then, you don't get revenue, do you John?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 16, 2009 12:51 PMThe state is allowed to get revenue. In fact, it must get revenue to operate. If the city cuts a tax and decides to raise revenues from those who are breaking the law, I'm not going to shed tears over the fact. You seem to believe that the state having revenue at any point in time is an evil thing.
A fine does two things. First, it discourages the activity. Second, as a matter of fact it raises revenue -- otherwise it wouldn't be a fine. You seem to believe that we should only talk about the first act that a fine does. Adults like city council members should address the second act as well.
Posted by John Jensen at November 16, 2009 01:10 PMOf course the creation of suburbs has impacted the dominance of cities over commercial interests -- who is disputing that? You seem to imply that Seattle is an economic failure. It is by far the richest city in the state. The most jobs. The most retail sales. The most money.
But, sure, Daniel. Enforcing the speed limit will cripple that.
Posted by John Jensen at November 16, 2009 01:39 PMIf the state makes revenue the focus, safety will inevitably suffer. If the state makes safety the focus, revenue will suffer.
Posted by travis t at November 16, 2009 02:04 PMGo ahead in your little delusion. This is not about safety AT ALL, per NICK LICATA'S OWN WORDS. But you enjoy your little false rationalization so that all is right with the world!
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 16, 2009 03:08 PMAnd yes, we enforce speed laws.
Dan, can a law raise revenues as well as affect safety? Does raising the price of speeding tickets both raise more revenues and discourage speeding?
Yes, adults like Licata recognize that revenue is raised and that revenue should be spent to get out of a shortfall. Should that revenue be raised from a head tax? Maybe not. Should that revenue be raised from those who are driving unsafely? Maybe so.
I care very little about Licata's mindset. Does calming traffic on city streets make for a safer city? I think so. And if we can raise revenues in the process, then let's do so.
Posted by John Jensen at November 16, 2009 04:47 PMLicata's position is to raise increase revenue first and foremost and the Safety issue is just, a smoke screen. It is the same as the Bag Tax to save the Environment. What a Joke! But again...You're a Liberal. Did someone say that Liberalism is a Mental Decease? Could it be True?
However, when I checked the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, in their report on driver distraction they report that the cell phone is not greatest single threat to distraction - not even close:
"They found that drivers spent approximately 15.3 percent of the time the vehicles were moving engaged in conversation with passengers. Drivers engaged in some other activity 14.5 percent of the total driving time. Percentages of times for specific activities included: preparing to eat, eating or spilling (4.6%); reaching for something or leaning, plus other internal distractions (3.8%); cell phone use (including dialing, answering, and talking) (1.3%); manipulating audio controls (1.4%); and smoking (1.6%)."
(See page 9 of http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/DOT-HS-810-704.pdf)
As you can see, the NHTSA finds that cellular phone usage is not "the greatest single threat to drivers attention".
The NHTSA report also links to another study, concluding:
"Sayer, Devonshire, and Flannagan (2005) observed samples of 5-second video clips obtained from 36 drivers during routine driving. Their analysis was based on approximately 120 hours of driving. They found that 34 percent of the 5-second episodes involved a secondary task. Most common was conversation with another passenger, which occurred in 15 percent of the samples, followed by grooming (6.5%), use of a hand-held cellular phone (5.3%), and eating or drinking (1.9%)."
Bruce, could you please provide a source for your strong statement? It does not agree with the NHTSA which is considering the leading authority on this topic.
Also, the NHTSA reports that the first half of 2009 has the lowest fatal accident rate in U.S. history. (See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811207.PDF) Since cellular phone usage is also an all time high, then either cell phones do not cause as many crashes as thought by some, or cell phones substitute for some other distraction so there is no net change in crashes or fatalities, or something else magical happened to reduce all fatalities (the trend line has been downward for many years) as cell phones were allegedly causing more crashes.
As you can hopefully see here, the story is a bit more complex than the statement that cell phones are the greatest driving distraction. The government's own reports and the fatal accident rate do not support that conclusion.
Thank you,
My personal experience is that talking on a cellphone is much more distracting than talking to a passenger, but I don't have data to prove that.
Posted by Bruce at November 16, 2009 10:09 PMNot a single person in this thread has presented ANY EVIDENCE that yellow light timing was shortened or that it was shortened specifically for red-light cameras. None.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 11:09 AMThe point is that no one here has bothered to do basic research. No one has bothered to present evidence whether any change in yellow light timing was because of red-light cameras. In other words, the significant amount of resentment pouring from some of these poster's mouths is based on assumptions rather than evidence.
That isn't how you analyze policy. That's how you rant like a nut.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 01:11 PMNot in "certain districts" within Seattle. I live in Seattle and have not noticed timing changes at the intersections with red-light cameras.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 01:15 PMWhy do you keep calling Councilman Licata a liar? Why? Read his words - safety has NOTHING to do with this, it's about revenue generation. You keep saying it's about safety and that's simply not true, per the Councilman's own words. Do you really hate him so much to always call him a liar?
Can you point to where Councilman Licata says this is about safety? Because his very words say its about revenue.
Why the hate, John? Why are you calling him a liar?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 17, 2009 01:50 PMI prefer safer streets. I prefer balanced budgets. I'd rather have people who break the law pay fines than for lawful citizens to pay taxes. I don't care what Licata's state of mind. I think it is part of the city council's job to decide how to raise revenues. I'm not afraid of that fact.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 02:33 PMSorry for not making point at #40 more obviously germane to the topic.
Posted by Bart Cannon at November 17, 2009 03:32 PMWhy can't the Council simply say "we want more money, so we'll raise taxes"; why do they need to hide it, and choose a method that is not reliable, not consistent, and requires the State to approve?
If Licata wants to raise funds, there seems to me to be a lot better ways to do it than what's being done here.
See, it's called being honest about your goals and intentions. Don't hide what you really want to do; if you're afraid it won't fly with the voters then DON'T DO IT to start!
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 17, 2009 03:47 PMI am fine raising revenue while increasing safety and enforcing the law. If you propose something like a broad tax, please explain why that is "better" than enforcing the law and creating safer streets.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 04:55 PMIf you NEED a constant $4.5 million, then how about something that doesn't vary so much, or rely upon habits that can dramatically change your revenue stream. Something like a small sales tax increase?
However, I'd say just hold the budget line, or cut. Why is the $4.5 million needed? Can you zero out raises for city workers for 2010 and gain it back?
Basically, why choose a highly variable source of revenue to plug a hole? Unless you want to be dishonest and not announce a real tax...
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 17, 2009 05:44 PMDid you ever serve in the military?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 17, 2009 05:46 PMFile this under 'question begging,' i.e. assuming as true that which is at issue to be proven.
A couple minutes with google reveals that there is no consensus that the cameras increase the level of safety. In fact several studies have found that the cameras reduced right-angle ('t-bone') collisions, but increased rear-end collisions by a similar pct. Since the rear-end collsions had more severe injuries, the net effect was reduced safety.
Again JJ, you fail to meet the standard you demand of others. In particular where's your study, pal?
Posted by travis t at November 17, 2009 05:46 PMYou're wrong. I found it through Google long ago. Please grow up, Daniel.
---
travis t, where's your study, pal?
Okay: From July to October 2008, red-light running at the six original camera locations decreased 59.3 percent from the same period two years earlier, according to a city evaluation report.
City officials said there's little evidence cameras have cut the frequency of all auto crashes, not to mention the more dangerous angle collisions, but it does appear that cameras may have mitigated the severity of crashes.
Though studies conducted elsewhere in the country have been mixed, a 2005 review by the Federal Highway Administration found that the cameras significantly decreased the number of right-angle collisions while slightly increasing the number of rear-end crashes. On balance, researchers found, the collisions at the intersections became less injurious.
---
Dan, If you NEED a constant $4.5 million, then how about something that doesn't vary so much, or rely upon habits that can dramatically change your revenue stream. Something like a small sales tax increase?
A SALES TAX increase? Rather than fines for people who speed?! We already have a 9.5% sales tax in Seattle, and you want to raise it?! That's ludicrous.
However, I'd say just hold the budget line, or cut.
Of course you would. You have no constructive way to raise revenue. You have zero ideas. You think government doesn't need money to operate.
Basically, why choose a highly variable source of revenue to plug a hole? Unless you want to be dishonest and not announce a real tax...
Do you have any evidence that this revenue source (speed vans) would be "highly variable"? Parking fines aren't.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 06:38 PMThis is the exact opposite of true. T-bone crashes are far more deadly. Since both of our research finds a decrease in t-bone crashes but a slight uptick in rear-end crashes which are far less injurious, the net effect is safety.
For most of the thread, I have been speaking about speed vans and not red-light cameras so much of my comments about safety have been about speeding and not running lights. I don't think it's a question about whether speeding on city streets -- not highways -- is dangerous. Of course it is.
Posted by John Jensen at November 17, 2009 06:41 PMOf course you would. You have no constructive way to raise revenue. You have zero ideas. You think government doesn't need money to operate.
Liar. I think Government has enough money now to cover the basics. How much more do you think it needs, John? $4.5 million? $10 million? $50 million?
See, the difference is that I believe Government should first look to cut its own expenses, rather than just raise taxes to keep things the same. But that's the difference between you and me - I believe it's my money to start, and the Government should get just enough to do the basics. You think Government owns all money and should leave to you what you want.
oh, and John:
Did you ever serve in the military? You afraid to answer that question?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 17, 2009 06:48 PMEarly in his history as a City Council member, he gathered up, as Dr. Evil would say, ONE MILLYUN DOLLARS to conduct a study of public clocks around the city of Seattle. Clocks like the old Ben Bridge clock at 47th and University Way.
He hired an old girlfriend of mine to create an Excel database of the findings.
The data was derived from asking people "what is your opinion of this clock ?".
Three days before the report was due, my former girlfriend asked me "what is Excel?".
Strange that there is no excess of intelligence around this city of the "highest literacy" in the nation.
Posted by Bart Cannon at November 18, 2009 01:07 AMYour 5 day old post still lives, AANNDD even liberal bullhorn Danny Westneat is on board with your complaints about this City of Seattle extortion program.
I think this is more proof that he secretly reads Sound Politics. See his column today in the Times.
You are an attornery, and a former prosecuting attorney, no less.
So. You and the bloggers have identified inconsistencies and lack of fairness in what Danny Westneat calls the red light camera ATM (automatic ticket machine) program.
How about you help collapse the unfair revenue generation and provide an easy guide to defeating
the ATM in traffic court ?
Don't you know? This is really about safety - John Jensen said so!
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 18, 2009 07:51 AMCity officials said there's little evidence cameras have cut the frequency of all auto crashes, not to mention the more dangerous angle collisions, but it does appear that cameras may have mitigated the severity of crashes.
"--John Jensen.
OK, a study from the very folks who stand to rake in money from the cams. That is certainly objective. Hey, I'm holding in my hands a study from Texaco that says light rail is no good.
Posted by travis t at November 18, 2009 12:53 PMAnd yes, I'm sure the government is doing a massive lie campaign about red light cameras.
Posted by John Jensen at November 18, 2009 04:01 PM"I've noticed that some lights downtown seem to go nearly immediately from green to red, with only a brief yellow signal -- not enough warning time to come to a sudden stop," she said.
She'd "generally noticed that most of the yellows seem much shorter -- no slowdown time. Even traveling at the normal 25-30, I have to either slam on the brakes -- throwing my big dog into the seat gap and groceries/purse on the floor and hoping the driver behind me doesn't hit me -- or go through as the light already changes to red. I've noticed it in other parts of town, too (especially Ballard), but mainly downtown."
Witter wondered if the change was designed to catch more people running red lights and hand out more tickets using traffic cameras.
Answer: Wayne Wentz, Seattle's traffic management director, said that's not the reason.
He said yellow signal times were shortened as part of a retiming of downtown signals in March, to make sure intersections are cleared of vehicles when lights change.
"Many of our downtown signals were operating with four seconds of yellow time, then going directly to green for the other direction," Wentz said. "During our recent optimization, we changed the signals to 3.5 seconds of yellow time and added one second of red in all directions for a total of 4.5 seconds. This actually increased the vehicle clearance time by 0.5 seconds."
City spokeswoman Peg Nielsen said lengthening the red-light times in all directions allows more time for vehicles to clear an intersection, by keeping others stopped longer. Wentz said that "as cameras are installed, we are ensuring that the clearance time is to our standards," and "a person driving responsibly should have no difficulty clearing the intersection or stopping in time."
Wentz said the city "calculates the length of a yellow light using national guidelines, which covers elements such as the speed limit, reaction times of drivers and driver deceleration rates. In general, the lower the speed limit, the greater the chance for a vehicle to stop, which requires less yellow time at signals. Streets with higher speeds require longer yellow times. The all-way red light time ensures that vehicles are able to clear the intersection."
Posted by John Jensen at November 18, 2009 04:15 PMDid you ever serve in the military?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 18, 2009 04:43 PMANSWER THE QUESTION: Did you ever serve in the military.
Posted by pbj at November 18, 2009 07:00 PMAnd yes, I'm sure the government is doing a massive lie campaign about red light cameras
"--John Jensen.
First of all, please do not 'um' me. It is not an english word, it's stupid, and it reeks of unwarranted condescension
I did not think that rear-end collisions were worse, I am merely going by this study. that I googled. The study (by VA DOT) says:
"the cameras are correlated with a definite decrease in crashes that are directly attributable to red light running, a definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light running, and an increase in total injury crashes"
I will freely admit I am not an expert on traffic safety, but again, you don't offer any evidence for your claim that t-bones are worse.
And last but not least, you don't think the government ever lies????
Posted by travis t at November 18, 2009 08:49 PMOkay: From July to October 2008, red-light running at the six original camera locations decreased 59.3 percent from the same period two years earlier, according to a city evaluation report.
City officials said there's little evidence cameras have cut the frequency of all auto crashes, not to mention the more dangerous angle collisions, but it does appear that cameras may have mitigated the severity of crashes.
Though studies conducted elsewhere in the country have been mixed, a 2005 review by the Federal Highway Administration found that the cameras significantly decreased the number of right-angle collisions while slightly increasing the number of rear-end crashes. On balance, researchers found, the collisions at the intersections became less injurious.
Yes the government lies sometimes, but I have never heard them lie about crash statistics and red-light running. Why do you think the police department is lying? Do you think all police are liar?
Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 12:08 PMDo you want me to prove that t-bone crashes are worse? Use common sense. A rear-end involves a car hitting the back of your car which is about 10 feet from your body, sending you into an airbag that is standard. A t-bone has a car hitting the driver's side door which provides about six inches of separation from your body and rarely has airbags. A t-bone is plainly more dangerous. The Federal Highway Administration makes the same point in its 2005 study.
Posted by John Jensen at November 19, 2009 12:12 PMDid you ever serve in the military? Or are you just too cowardly to answer?
Posted by Shanghai Dan at November 19, 2009 02:03 PMKeep in mind that there is at least a 50% chance of passenger-side impact, and a high probability of an unoccupied passenger seat. That was what happened to me. But back and neck injuries, problematic to treat, are common even in minor rear-end collisions. I have had more than one friend go through that experience.
Until I see a more definitive study it's an open question for me.