Advice to Clinton; Red light cameras

The Nightly Build...

---

Righting Clinton's Ship

Mark Davis, in the guise of offering advice to Hillary Clinton, launches the right wing general election campaign of tearing down Barack Obama, with a few shots at Clinton herself, just in case she does manage to pull this one out. He calls some of Clinton's campaign rhetoric "canned nonsense" and "dumb." Instead, he suggests that Obama can be brought down by "good, old-fashioned truth telling".

Which, in Mark Davis' universe, equates to scurrilous attacks. He admits to feeling pleased by slurs on Obama's so-called "foreign roots" and "Muslim-tinged history." He alludes to Obama using one line suggested by his friend and campaign advisor in a speech as a "penchant for borrowing other people's speeches." He calls Obama a "glib narcissist" who has the media "in the tank" for him. He puts down Obama's supporters as "Obama-bots."

Newsflash to Mark Davis: Barack Obama is riding high right now because he promises a change from your old style gutter politics. Voters know the difference between the same old slurs and slanders versus "good old-fashioned truth telling." And so far, in this election, slurs and slanders aren't winning. And that's the truth.

---

Frontburner's Weak Arguments Against Red Light Cameras

Trey Garrison is back at it, whining against enforcement of red light laws by the use of automated cameras. He tosses a lot of complaints up against the wall, hoping something sticks. Nothing does.

Garrison claims red light camera violate the Constitution because violations are considered a civil infraction, like parking tickets. He doesn't cite any court rulings in support of his flimsy claim. There are two separate offenses at work here. One is running a red light, which the driver is guilty of. The other is having a car caught by a camera, which the car's owner is responsible for, similar to parking violations. Anyone can be charged with either or both of these infractions. Everyone is equal.

Garrison's claim that handling civil offenses differently than criminal offenses is somehow a violation of due process is similarly lame. Good luck with that.

No one argues that law enforcement doesn't reduce red light violations. It does. Still, Garrison claims that enforcing laws against running red lights doesn't work, presumably meaning law enforcement doesn't reduce accidents. To back this up, he cites the experience of Washington, DC, where accidents have actually increased at intersections with red light cameras. But the newspaper article he cites quotes city officials who say that increased traffic volumes can explain the increase in accidents. In fact, broadside accidents, the kind that running red lights typically result in, have increased less than other kinds of accidents. Wider studies have shown the value of red light cameras. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, of the 200 cities that use the technology, most have reported a drop in serious accidents. Trey Garrison cherry picked the studies to find support for his pre-conceived opposition to red light cameras.

Garrison claims that cities use red light cameras a cash cow. That's a bogus argument in Texas because the state has reached its own greedy fist into the revenue stream to make it hard for cities to profit from red light camera. In fact, early adopters like Garland are now finding that red light violations have decreased so much at intersections controlled by cameras that the system no longer pays for itself. Garland considers that a good thing. So much for the greed argument.

Garrison claims that cities cheat. Well, people cheat at all sorts of worthwhile things. The thing to do is crack down on cheating. Don't toss out the worthwhile things. You'd think a gun rights activist like Garrison would know that.

Finally, Garrison claims that other measures, like increasing the duration of yellow lights, also decrease red light running. One commentor suggests overlapping red lights in both directions. Although I am not necessarily opposed to these measures, they do decrease the total traffic volume an intersection can handle. Drivers in general, not just red light runners, are intolerant of delays. They aren't likely to embrace solutions that make their waits at intersections even longer. Why not embrace a solution that catches law-breakers and doesn't delay the law-abiding?

In short, none of Garrison's arguments hold water. Still intact is the fact that red light cameras reduce violations, reduce accidents and save lives.