FC: Dick Armey's aide replies to Politech on photo radar, speeding

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous Politech message:

"Replies to Dick Armey, speeding, and photo radar helping safety"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03482.html

---

From: "Diamond, Richard" <Richard.Diamond () mail house gov>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'" <declan () well com>, politech () politechbot com
Subject: RE: Replies to Dick Armey, speeding, and photo radar helping safety
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:13:05 -0400

Replies follow, but first here's some new information of general interest.
The IIHS report in question is located here:
http://www.highwaysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3705.pdf

Read it! You'll find many amazing things.  First, note that the camera crowd
isn't satisfied with speed and red light cameras.  "Tailgating cameras" are
being used in the Netherlands and Israel. What's next?

Well, apparently local bureaucrats aren't satisfied with having pesky human
beings review traffic citations.  That takes too long.  Their alternative is
direct deposit out of your bank account into their coffers if you speed by.
Found on Pg. 5:

"Future of automation: Most current systems aren't fully automated.... The
ticketing part of the process is done manually by reviewing the photographic
evidence.  Fully automated systems may be in the future.  Digital cameras
already exist that can recognize license plates, link to motor vehicle
registration databases, and issues tickets. The speed enforcement system
being tested in the Netherlands has this capability."

The rate of mission creep for these cameras is phenomenal -- and that's
precisely why we ought to resist them. Now for a few responses:

Mr. Withers argued, essentially, that "slower is safer."  Every time I hear
that phrase, I'm compelled to ask, slower than what?  If your goal is to
eliminate all risk, then you might as well park your car and walk.  I cited
several studies that say there is a consensus of research showing that there
is an optimum traffic speed traffic for given conditions, and that driving
substantially faster OR slower than that speed is less safe.

I'll add that the accident numbers for 2001 came out last week.  Despite
elimination of the 55 speed limit, the accident rate has still not
increased.  I.e., slower is not necessarily safer.

Mr. Walker takes issue with some of the factual claims made in our report.
All I can say, without breaking out the slide rule, is that the new MUTCD
says you can calculate the yellow time for an intersection based on the
speed limit.  The old one says you must use the actual speed of traffic.
That's a significant difference, and the reason for the change is politics,
not engineering.  I recall that at least 8 out of 10 intersections in San
Diego had significantly underposted limits. That led to short yellows in
their calculations.

As for the dilemma zone, call it what you will. Whatever term you choose to
use, we described a real phenomenon.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------