Regular readers know that I am not a big fan of cameras used to prevent things like running red lights. There have been too many situations where the issue of safety is not supported by the location or use of the cameras. In many cases, these cameras have been used for little more than to generate revenue for the jurisdiction, because the cameras have been placed in locations that work against the drivers. Some of the companies that sell, install and maintain the camera enforcement systems have been indicted for bribing local officials to get the cameras in place because the money is so big. Again, there are too many situations where the impact on safety has been negligible, while the jurisdiction’s coffers swell. Adjusting the timing of the amber or yellow cycle is a much better first step and has proven time and time again to accomplish the much-needed safety requirements.

That being said, I noted with interested that in last week’s elections a law that would have allowed enforcement cameras was voted down.

That’s right, local officials were forced to put the issue up to a vote of the general population and the people said they didn’t want them. By a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent, residents of Steubenville, Ohio, voted down the “automated traffic sensor program.” There seems to have been some confusion because of the way the proposal was worded, but as you might imagine, there was a great deal of advance publicity of the bill so the voters understood what they were voting for or against. It’s nice to see that there are still some places where the residents get to make decisions on issues like police enforcement and especially something that has proven so divisive as the use of cameras.

There are a lot of drivers education programs out there. Some of the programs are run by big companies that have been around for years; some seem to be little more than a guy with an old Toyota Corolla with a magnetic sign on it. Now the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released some guidelines that might help evaluate programs and determine which ones are effective and which should be avoided. While the study is mainly intended for use by those operating programs, it might serve the general public by offering tips on what to look for in a program. The report can be found on the Foundation’s Web site (www.aaafoundation.org). The Foundation also has, just in time for the holidays, released for sale an interactive DVD called “Driver-ZED” that targets teen drivers. I’ve received a copy and will give you and evaluation of it in the next few days.

This story continues below
Advertisement

A road by any other name ...

Michael writes: “Just a minor correction. Traffic circles and roundabouts are not the same thing. Traffic circles are generally larger and signalized: They have traffic signals telling traffic when it can and cannot enter and/or leave the circle.

“Roundabouts are generally smaller, and are unsignalized. Roundabouts often replace a four-way stop at an intersection, requiring the incoming traffic to yield to traffic in the circle and attempting to increase the throughput and decrease the emissions from traditional four-way stops. Unlike traffic circles, roundabouts are often used as traffic calming devices.”