Seaweb and 74cb750, I do love to see justice.
The lawyers are still deciding the legality of it, but
the local news rag had an interesting piece that predicted that people would jam on their brakes to avoid running the
light with the result being more rear end collisions. I would think that is still preferable to getting t-boned in the intersection.
Jeez... has the writer of that worst-case-scenario article never heard of the yellow light? It's perfectly possible, and rather easy, to safely stop for a red light without ever having to jam on your brakes. I do it several times every day without being rear-ended, and in a city where it's common practice for at least four or five cars to go through the intersection after the light has turned red.
Most cities tend to add a delay between the red light in one direction and the green light in the other, thinking this will decrease the number of accidents at light-controlled intersections. I have to disagree. People know there's a delay and they exploit it, and many take it too far. I lived in a city for about a year where there was no delay at all between the red and green of cross traffic, and guess what? When the light for your lanes of traffic turned yellow, everybody stopped! Imagine that! ::)
I want to provide a few other details in my case. The light in question (in extremely rich Lexington, Massachusetts no less) is designed for accidents. It has two lanes in both directions. None are exclusively turning lanes. There is a delayed green allowing traffic to turn left; however, rich Lexington cannot be bothered to install a light that has a green arrow and especially one that has a
yellow arrow.
Worse, an officer in a booth controls the light in the AM, so I could not even use past experience to judge duration of the delayed green. The duration is completely random to folks like me who take that commute every morning. Truly, our only warning is that on-coming traffic begins to move toward us as we are turning left. This is a logical traffic pattern, no? However, in the Boston area it is hard to deny that governmental intent lies behind the dangerous traffic patterns in addition to the missing and, in some cases, absolutely incorrect signs.
I was already in the middle of the first on coming lane when an SUV received the green and started to move toward my quarter. Braking would have left me in T-bone position. As stated, I still cannot see a better option than to risk rear ending the car ahead. Nevertheless, I feel so strongly about the wrongness of rear ending that I accept the ticket and points.
Incidentally, it just dawned on me that Lexington -- which as I have implied simply oozes money -- can afford to build a very nice booth for the exclusive use of the officer who works the traffic light for no more than 10 hours each week. It is Lexington, after all, and it must blend with the historic town. Picture a nice wooden booth, with cedar siding, with a multi-peaked roof of cedar shingles, and with large multi-paned windows that face all directions; however, Lexington cannot be afford to fix a traffic light. :-( :-( :-( We must have priorities, don't we? I no longer live in Massachusetts.
Rather than hiding, maybe the police should drive in traffic more. [snip]
I never thought of that. We've got a stretch here that always has speed traps. I once counted 5 during a stretch of less than 60 miles. What would happen if those 5 patrol cars were moving with traffic the whole time? Would I be able to run like a bat out of the nether world between traps?
