reason number one for red light cameras
After he got the signal that it was ok to proceed, Macelin Azor crossed West Main Street on Sunday afternoon in his motorized wheelchair. Seemingly out of nowhere, a pickup slammed into him from his left, sending his wheelchair rolling and killing him.
Jermaine DeWhite Anderson drove a pickup down West Main Street, and ran through a red light. He swerved to avoid a vehicle crossing through the green light, and crashed into Azor at a high rate of speed.
For those of you who say red light cameras will cause more rear-end collisions, well, I’m simply OK with that.
Tags: news, red light cameras, transportation
Loading ...
March 4th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Cameras won’t cause more rear-endings if people drive the speed limit and stay the proper distance off someone’s bumper. Ever see the scene in Lost Highway where Robert Loggia beats the tar out of that guy for riding his bumper?
March 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Tommy, I don’t believe tickets will slow people like Jermaine DeWhite Anderson.
The cameras are so expensive that only a few intersections will get them…and they’ll be well known.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have them. There are just some cheaper things we can do at all the other intersections to make them safer.
I owe you an article.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I live near this location and see cars of all types haulassing through all the time. Given all the kids running around and people on bikes, in wheelchairs, etc., I’m actually surprised this didn’t happen sooner. Sadly, the only thing that will stop it is incidents like this, and that’s only one at a time.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
consider the fact that he turned himself in, without a red-light camera in place.
March 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
He only turned himself in because his truck was on a camera and witnesses had the tag number.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Fair enough, though while I did read that the convenience store had some video, the stories in both (online) papers show video taken from the front only. Neither story mentioned anything about a tag number. Maybe you get your info from a different source?
I read yesterday that tickets doled out to motorists from red-light-camera surveillance will not be considered moving violations; instead they’ll be more like citations.
This particular hit-and-run is really unfortunate, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the debate about red-light cameras. There were people there with a camera, and (you say) they got the tag number, and the driver turned himself in. A red-light camera wouldn’t have picked up the tag number, and a determined evildoer could’ve easily fled the scene and ditched the car.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Joe Pos, you’ve missed the point. Store video, TV reports and this guy’s conscious all aside, this tragedy could have been avoided altogether! Who knows whether lights will do anything to help. Fact is we’ve all got to be more careful out there and recognize speed limits are posted for a reason and, oh yeah, there are other people on the streets besides ourselves.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I’m putting a trailer hitch on my car right now. Sure, it will make my sports car look like white trash, but it will be cheaper than getting a new bumper every few months when someone rear-ends me.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:53 am
On the news (Fox) they had the make, model and tag number listed the night of the accident. I guess a witness gave the tag number the did not specify.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Joe Positve: Red light cameras photograph the REAR of the car in the middle of the intersection, so the tag number would have been visible.
What is it with the attitudes about red light cameras?? If you don’t run the light, you don’t get a ticket! As far as I’m concerned, this guy committed vehicular homicide and should be so charged and tried.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
“What is it with the attitudes about red light cameras??”
They were found unconstitutional in Virginia and Minnesota:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/496.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
I think it has something to do with two things:
-fear of a police state
-all research conducted on red lights found they have increased traffic accidents, particularly rear end collisions.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I think red-light cameras are a double-edged sword. Such hands-off enforcement methods conflict with the presumption of innocence we all deserve. It places the burden of proof on the accused. All these new self-checkouts don’t work properly half the time and don’t even get me started on the POS that is Windows Vista. Yet the assumption on these cameras is that they’re virtually indisputable unless you can prove you were elsewhere at the time of the violation. Utilizing statistics, it is very easy to determine the most dangerous intersections in town. Why not place officers at these locations full-time and have zero-tolerance for violations. I’ve seen numerous examples of blatant red-light running go completely ignored by LEA sitting in full view of the incident. Active enforcement will save many more lives than snapping photos of those squeezing the pink.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Or at the very least what about automated canons that fire paintballs at the cars who run lights so everyone else on the road can see they are a horribly f@cking driver?
We can also install Spy Hunter-style rear-mounted paintball guns to shoot at tailgaters.
Cameras or no cameras, people need to get their heads out of their asses, accept that they are not the most important person on the road and obey the traffic laws.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
we need California style pedestrian safety laws more than red light cameras. I want $500 fines for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
David I’m with you, can we also paintball people that make U-Turns when they are not supposed to! People are all about themselves and I get just as mad as you!
March 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Suppose Florida drivers just lost their contempt for the traffic laws and started obeying them? Ya think it might stop the red-light running? And all the other crap we put up with in traffic?
March 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Clyde said it best! Red means stop. Green means go.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
For all those paranoid folks that fear the Police State, red light cameras should be the least of your concerns.
I’m just not a fan of the “lets do nothing” crowd, paralyzed because hypothetically, you know, there could be a violation of someone’s rights, don’t know for sure but…
WP, do you know how many officers it would take to sit at every dangerous intersection in town and cover all directions?
C’mon!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“C’mon!”
All I can ever think of when I hear that now is GOB Bluth.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hyperbole much there anon? Obviously the most dangerous intersections where red-light scofflaws are the primary cause of accidents would be merely a place to start and receive immediate results. One would not need to place round-the-clock officers at every intersection to be effective. With strict and regular enforcement fewer people would feel empowered to run lights. As it is now, I’ve witnessed several times more incidents of LEA failing to act on red-light running in their presence than perpetrators pulled over.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
All I’m saying is that there are better things for our Police Officers to be doing than hanging out at intersections. Hence the cameras.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Like dumping the handicapped from wheelchairs and arresting skateboarders right?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist
hehehe.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:04 am
1st off if you look at the cameras closely, you can see it was another truck that caused Mr. Anderson to swerve into Mr. Azor so before you put all the blame on Mr. Anderson i would hope someone would make an attempt to find that other driver, yes its very unfortunate that this happened but unless everyone who was involved in this is put on trial, i don’t think justice will be served.