That’s what cost Redwood City Calif. a lot of money.

One of the problems with red-light cameras (in Calif.) is that any vehicle which has entered an intersection prior to a red light is allowed to proceed.  Redwood City had to void between six-months and a year of citations because the firm being paid to review the photos wasn’t actually taking that aspect of the law into account.

If so my point still stands: The camera is not the accuser, it is a device for collecting evidence.

There’s no realpolitik involved here. These are remedial driving skills and simple physics.

I don’t see how you can blame the traffic camera any more than the traffic light. A person could reasonably slow down for a yellow light without a traffic camera, and the rear-end accident would still be fault of the person who was following too closely and/or speeding. The accident simply would not have happened if the person in the rear had left enough space to stop in time and had been driving responsibly. I’m aware that 95% of drivers seem to tailgate, but that just means 95% are driving irresponsibly, not that we should start blaming traffic laws or devices that confirm when drivers are breaking laws.

I see this essential argument frequently, and I have some reservations with it.

I agree, I have no expectation that any particular action that I do in a public place will remain unseen forever.

However: imagine a full extension of your argument – a scenario where there are cameras at every intersection, with both license number parsing and facial recognition logic behind them.  In this world, anyone can instantly be updated with anyone’s location, and watch every minute of the footage they care to see.  If they get in a car, that car’s license is tracked; if they get out of the car that’s tracked; if they go into a private home it’s tracked; if they go into a shop, their every movement is tracked.

Can you agree that your privacy is being violated, even though everything that’s being monitored is happening in public?

So, I would argue, the standard of “there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space” is obviously not enough – some additional standards need to apply.

I only ever see those covers on 4-bangers cheaply modded, which to me would indicate that there is no reason to bust people for those since the buyer is going to run afoul of the Man in some silly way anyhow.

If the only thing you are trying to claim is that red light cameras have at least once in the history of forever contributed to certain types of accidents, then all you need is evidence that one did so, once.  A sufficiently reliable anecdote will do just fine.

If you are trying to claim that their effect in contributing to those accidents is of a certain magnitude, or that it offsets / does not offset their effect in reducing other kinds of accidents – then anecdote cannot help you prove that.

Plus that’s just talking about 6 cities.  That’s not “how it’s done”, that’s how some cities did it.

Also, if you’re driving so close to the person in front that you can’t stop if they do indeed slam on their brakes, then you are the cause of the problem.  No ifs or buts about it.

I know many drivers think tailgating is no big deal (they certainly act like it), but I personally am very uncomfortable if I am too close to the vehicle in front of me. 

Personally, I think all red lights should have cameras, and all highways should have radar traps.  But I am all too conscious that if I am to die young it will likely be the result of a moron driver who is not paying sufficient attention to his/her responsibilities as an operator of a vehicle.

It just isn’t that hard to drive safely.