It’s just like old times again as I go after Tim Eyman in the current analog edition of The Stranger (as Atrios tweeted yesterday, “he’s sam jackson to your bruce willis“), in which I ask the burning question raised by Tim’s latest for-profit venture, a crusade against red-light cameras: “Will Tim Eyman Stop at Nothing?”

Tim’s argument: local governments are picking your pockets. My argument: red-light cameras save lives.

You decide.

62 replies on “Me and Tim Together Again”

  1. @48: But this isn’t someone trying to beat the light. This is clearly a drunk or otherwise distracted driver not even noticing there IS a light, or even an intersection. Tell me how red-light cameras are going to have any effect on this kind of accident.

  2. @54

    By giving bad drivers more opportunities to rack up infractions and get taken off the road before they kill somebody. By freeing police resources from routine enforcement to target the worst drivers. Not to mention other, more serious crime. And, finally, by causing a cultural shift where speeding, tailgating, and running through yellow and red lights are no longer considered “normal” behavior. There’s a significant amount of research showing that social acceptance of scofflaws and corruption correlates with a higher rate of traffic fatalities.

    By and large we have succeeded in making drunk driving socially noxious where it once was considered normal, even a sign of masculinity and competence. Now drunk drivers are thought of as losers and jerks. Which proves that attitudes can be made to change.

  4. @ The Wretched Harmony

    Let me preface this comment by making it clear I’m not advocating the ability to break motoring laws, nor do I ever find myself on the side of Eyman.

    However, I have many questions that need to be answered adequately for me, before I can get on board more cameras.

    1. Why are red light camera tickets not moving violations? Why are these tickets treated similarly to parking tickets?

    2. Why are we changing the way we regulate drivers, and phasing out police(wo)men?

    3. How is the revenue split between the city and the out of state camera operating corporation?

    4. Who can you call into court to dispute that you ran the red light? Can you face your accuser?

    5. Do red light cameras actually make communities safer? I know for me, I’m paranoid of getting a ticket, and because of this I’m a more erratic (less safe and predictable) driver by monitored intersections.

    Instead of red light cameras I have a different suggestion. Why don’t we keep increasing the difficulty, and frequency of the driving test? I think if our state made it much more difficult to earn your license people would realize they have a 4000lb vehicle in their control and might pay more attention to the act of driving.

  5. Has there ever been a study that actually showed a decrease in traffic fatalities once cameras are installed? I haven’t seen any that hold up to any analysis.

    I hate the fucking flashes, I hate the fucking surveillance. Get the fucking cameras out of there.

  8. I got a red light ticket once and was angry for about five minutes and then, because I’m an adult, realized I deserved it and am now more careful.

  9. Eyman’s “secret” to staying safe while terrible drivers continue to maul people running red light: drive a big SUV and live in a gated community.

    Typical self-absorbed right wing teabag mentality.

  10. “the majority of people killed in red-light crashes are not the drivers who run the red lights”

    BINGO! If red light runners were guaranteed to die, and the rest of us safe drivers / peds were guaranteed to live, I would be ALL FOR getting rid of red light cameras.

    The ONLY reason Eyman is on this kick is because he drives like an aggressive dickhead, like many stick-up-the-but anti-social vanilla dweebs – and he wants US to get out of HIS way.

    If there was no such thing as “self-centered” there would be no such thing as “Republicans”

  11. HisDudeNess, here you go:

    1. Why are red light camera tickets not moving violations? Why are these tickets treated similarly to parking tickets?

    Because the pussies in the legislature compromised BIGTIME to the Eyman mindset so as to get the bill passed – allowing red light cameras to be deployed initially.

    2. Why are we changing the way we regulate drivers, and phasing out police(wo)men?

    Because police are already stretched too thin; because to properly enforce a busy intersection you need FOUR cars/motorcycles – and those four cops spend most of their time doing nothing; and because the police should be out catching criminals, not dealing with stoned/drunk/stupid motorists.

    3. How is the revenue split between the city and the out of state camera operating corporation?

    Who fucking cares? The lights are installed to stop asshole drivers from killing and maiming innocent people. If the city/camera company makes money – WHO FUCKING CARES (aside from Dori Monson, Tim Eyman and habitually bad drivers) If the city loses money WHO FUCKING CARES? The right wing assholes who made this issue into “guvmint picking your wallet” rather than the obvious safety issue…DESERVE to have one of their family members mauled by a red light runner.

    4. Who can you call into court to dispute that you ran the red light? Can you face your accuser?

    Yeah. You get to watch the video online before you even go to court. You can watch the video with the judge. You can bring all your half-retarded friends and family in if you want. But the VIDEO DOESN’T LIE (unless you’re one of those trolls who insists the moon landing was staged)

    5. Do red light cameras actually make communities safer? I know for me, I’m paranoid of getting a ticket, and because of this I’m a more erratic (less safe and predictable) driver by monitored intersections.

    Yes. That is why they are deployed. Your cluelessness on these issues proves how pervasive right wing / libertardian lies have become.

  12. Here is the NPR report Kirby @31 says “will change Goldy’s mind”:

    Study Finds Red Light Cameras Cut Fatal Crashes
    February 1, 2011

    Red light cameras are helping drivers remember that red means stop and are saving lives, according to a new study out Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The study concludes that the cameras have reduced the rate of fatal crashes by 24 percent in 14 large cities that introduced red light cameras between 1996 and 2004.

    But Kirby chose to listen to some teabag clown from Wisconsin, instead:

    Gary Biller, executive director of the National Motorists Association, a Wisconsin-based drivers’ rights organization, disputed the institute’s finding that the cameras have reduced deaths. He cited previous studies — questioned by the institute — that found that the cameras increase crashes, including rear-end collisions.

    Here’s a sections from his hick website:

    7 Ways To Shut Down A Speed Trap
    This article explains several ways to bring public and private wrath down upon the perpetrators of speed traps.

    Conclusion: Kirby is a sucker for right-wing libertardian propaganda.

Comments are closed.