Con_Alma;1403275 wrote:1) you don't ever have to pay extra attention to study where the lights are. Just follow the traffic laws and lights...all of them.

But people aren't going to do that. If the goal is ENFORCEMENT, then do you disagree that effectiveness matters? The law is, presumably, not on the books to generate revenue so the question becomes how to use the cameras to effectively achieve the intent driving the laws? And I'll maintain it's pretty obvious the goal is not to be effective discouraging the behavior but in ticketing it.

gut;1403278 wrote:But people aren't going to do that. If the goal is ENFORCEMENT, then do you disagree that effectiveness matters? The law is, presumably, not on the books to generate revenue so the question becomes how to use the cameras to effectively achieve the intent driving the laws? And I'll maintain it's pretty obvious the goal is not to be effective discouraging the behavior but in ticketing it.

The fact that people aren't going to do that is the point. More enforcement ability is made available by the cameras.

Not all laws are designed to be a deterrent or I should say not all penalties are in place to be deterrents.

Everyone knows the laws exists. Be it a camera or an officer, if we break the law, truly break the law, there's really not a lot of reason to cry foul. It's seems most people get upset because they get away with a lot of the time and now this increases the chances of getting caught.

Con_Alma;1403279 wrote: Not all laws are designed to be a deterrent or I should say not all penalties are in place to be deterrents.

Huh? Explain that one to me, because I struggle to understand how it can be justified other than as revenue generation.

Con_Alma;1403279 wrote: Everyone knows the laws exists. Be it a camera or an officer, if we break the law, truly break the law, there's really not a lot of reason to cry foul. It's seems most people get upset because they get away with a lot of the time and now this increases the chances of getting caught.

I don't think it's that black & white. We all know there are bad intersections where, for example, you can only get thru turning left by running a red. We can come up with numerous examples where the law is designed to prevent unsafe behavior but these camera's are being used to generate revenue off of perfectly safe violators.

If the only ostensible purpose of the law and/or enforcement is revenue generation, then why wouldn't people be upset over unnecessary fines?

gut;1403283 wrote:Huh? Explain that one to me, because I struggle to understand how it can be justified other than as revenue generation. ...

There are any punishments that don't deter at all. If deterrent was the goal, then then prnalties would have to be increased drastically...take speeding for example.

gut;1403283 wrote:...I don't think it's that black & white. We all know there are bad intersections where, for example, you can only get thru turning left by running a red. We can come up with numerous examples where the law is designed to prevent unsafe behavior but these camera's are being used to generate revenue off of perfectly safe violators.

If the only ostensible purpose of the law and/or enforcement is revenue generation, then why wouldn't people be upset over unnecessary fines?

I have never seen an intersection where the only way you can turn left is by running the red. Once you enter the intersection you have the right of way to clear it if the light turns red. That's not a violation. I don't believe anyone has ever been permanently stuck a t an intersection

I don't believe the only ostensible purpose of the law is revenue generation. You don't think it's a good law to restrict people from going through red light?? We have an obligation to see such a law enforced. I really dont care if people get upset with such enforcement or not. Ultimately they are in control of avoiding such fines.

We take 4 thousand pound metal rocket and accelerate just inches apart from another metal rocket each every day. We don't fear for our safety because we count on the other person to follow the rules and we do the same. If people aren't following the rules, then anything we can do to enforce such traffic laws is a good thing.

If they really wanted to increase safety and stop accidents they would increase the time a light stays yellow which is proven to dramatically lower accidents.

sportchampps;1403413 wrote:If they really wanted to increase safety and stop accidents they would increase the time a light stays yellow which is proven to dramatically lower accidents.

I believe that time is based on the speed limit on the respective road. A 50 mile an hour road should have a longer caution light than a 35 MPH.

What would increase safety and stop accidents are people following the traffic laws.

Con_Alma;1403383 wrote:There are any punishments that don't deter at all. If deterrent was the goal, then then prnalties would have to be increased drastically...take speeding for example.

One more time, if the purpose of the law is not to prevent or deter a behavior, then other than revenue what purpose could it have? Do you not realize how stupid this sounds - you have no goal to deter speeding, but have a speed limit? It's not a recommended driving speed.

Con_Alma;1403383 wrote: I have never seen an intersection where the only way you can turn left is by running the red. Once you enter the intersection you have the right of way to clear it if the light turns red. That's not a violation. I don't believe anyone has ever been permanently stuck a t an intersection

People pull into the intersection and then turn when the light goes red, otherwise you'd never make the turn in traffic. You have to clear the intersection, that is not a violation. You are technically not supposed to pull into the intersection unless you can complete your turn. You'll never get a ticket (from a live cop), but traffic wouldn't flow otherwise.

Con_Alma;1403383 wrote:We have an obligation to see such a law enforced. I really dont care if people get upset with such enforcement or not. Ultimately they are in control of avoiding such fines.

Again, what's the purpose of enforcing the law? Do you want to stop them from running a red light or not? Do you really think it's effective to send them a slap on the wrist 7-10 days after committing the offense? I'm not aware of any behavioral studies that would advocate that as an effective way of changing habits.

Con_Alma;1403415 wrote: What would increase safety and stop accidents are people following the traffic laws.

What would be even more effective is people not driving at all! :thumbup:

gut;1403449 wrote:One more time, if the purpose of the law is not to prevent or deter a behavior, then other than revenue what purpose could it have? Do you not realize how stupid this sounds - you have no goal to deter speeding, but have a speed limit? It's not a recommended driving speed....

The purpose of the law is to prevent behavior. The penalty may not be designed such as to deter. There's difference.

gut;1403449 wrote:...People pull into the intersection and then turn when the light goes red, otherwise you'd never make the turn in traffic. You have to clear the intersection, that is not a violation. You are technically not supposed to pull into the intersection unless you can complete your turn. You'll never get a ticket (from a live cop), but traffic wouldn't flow otherwise. ...

You pull into the intersection when the light turns green. If oncoming traffic continues until the light turns red you have the right of way over all others to clear the intersection. That's not a a violation of the law.

gut;1403449 wrote:....Again, what's the purpose of enforcing the law? Do you want to stop them from running a red light or not? Do you really think it's effective to send them a slap on the wrist 7-10 days after committing the offense? I'm not aware of any behavioral studies that would advocate that as an effective way of changing habits.

The purpose of enforcing to the law is to keep chaos off of the roads. Without order we would have chaos and an unusable common space for vehicles.