The RTA's case for its so-called safety cameras is that "crashes that result from drivers running red lights can be particularly severe because they often involve the front of a vehicle impacting with the side doors of another vehicle", and on the face of it that's a worthy justification for another extension of the gauntlet drivers face every day. But that case is justification for the red-light cameras we've had for some time, not the dual cameras the RTA calls safety cameras. (If these are called safety cameras because, the RTA insists, they are about safety, what are speed cameras?) The dual cameras, which may reach the Hunter by the end of this year, are red-light cameras that operate as speed cameras as well, so if you're accelerating through an amber light you risk both speeding and red-light fines and point losses.
But here's the rub. The speeding half of these dual cameras works all the time, on green as well as amber and red lights.
Sydney has four now, with one issuing fines and three issuing warnings for a short time, and is to get 50 by July. The next 50, with locations to be announced by the RTA and the Government after June, may well include a few in the Lower Hunter, and another 100 are to be installed by the end of 2013.
It has always seemed to me that anyone running a red light, or taking a late risk on an an amber, has no defence, but checking the speed of people proceeding through green lights smacks of revenue raising. And it adds another layer of complexity to using traffic lights. It's not so much a question of whether there can be an excuse for speeding, it is a question of whether we can be excused for not monitoring fine variations in speed as we monitor so many other factors involved in moving safely through traffic lights.
Email a friend