Rather than come up with something else for today, I figured some commentary I have already given elsewhere on Virginia's favorite racket could be of interest. Note that the example given is not a case of business libel, since the truth is a defense to that tort :-) Also note that I am rather pleased at having recently passed my own inspection without any ill marks.
((((((((((((((((((((((((()
Note on Virginia inspections:
1) Never let your inspector do your repairs. If you don't know him or his reputation, let him know that before the inspection. For many mechanics, the inspection process is their means of creating work. Don't give them the pleasure.
2) If you see someone whose car is in as bad a shape as yours, ask them where they had it inspected. You would be surprised how much room the law actually gives an inspector who isn't just out to find things to fix.
3) There is no "redo" on an inspection - once it is marked as needing repair, you have to get it to pass. However, if the item is not really broken, just find a new inspector for the re-inspection and tell him that you fixed it yourself. And warn your friends about the old inspector. There is an Exxon station on Van Dorn in Alexandria that did this to me ;-)
4) (For girls and men who look like office types) Unfortunately, it is a fair assumption that you will get better treatment by having a guy friend in grubbies (it is more effective if he looks like he is at home with grease under his fingernails) do all the talking and watch him as he does the inspection (feigning both interest in and understanding of the process if necessary).
5) *NEW ADVICE (not available on Em's post :-)* If you are going in for an emissions inspection, make sure your engine is hot - this can cut some emissions figures by up to two-thirds. Driving on a freeway for ten or twenty miles should get the engine warm enough. Also helpful are going to the inspector when there isn't a long line and not getting the safety inspection done first.
6) Bonus humorous note: ever wonder why the Blogspot spell check doesn't recognize the word "blog"?
Monday, October 31, 2005
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Biblical Lobbyists II
Rocks are just part of our heritage. Where would Israel be today if Ehud hadn't gone to the quarries* before finishing off Eglon and the Moabites?
--National Big Heavy Stones Association
*We are aware that the King James is the only major translation that uses this term in Judges 3. Note, however, that this is also the only major translation to have been made before the influence of the modern anti-rocks movement.
--National Big Heavy Stones Association
*We are aware that the King James is the only major translation that uses this term in Judges 3. Note, however, that this is also the only major translation to have been made before the influence of the modern anti-rocks movement.
Fairfax Judge a Stickler About the Law, Say Prosecutors
Judge Ian O'Flaherty of the Fairfax General District Court has taken a seemingly moot-courtish approach to one of the most emotionally involved areas of law, dismissing DWI cases on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment's guarantee that a witness will not be compelled to testify against himself creates the famous "presumption of innocence," and makes unconstitutional any law that requires a criminal defendant to disprove an assumption. In the words of Judge O'Flaherty, "The Fifth Amendment means that the defendant can sit there, not say or do anything, and at the end of the case say, 'Can I go home now?' "
Virginia's DWI law (Va. Code §18.2-269), however, uses breath-based blood alcohol level tests to create a "rebuttable presumption" that the person is intoxicated if their blood alcohol is above .08. In other words, the statute doesn't convict them for having that much alcohol in their blood, but shifts the burden to them to disprove that they were driving while intoxicated. The law requires that the state prove that the person was driving, but lets the prosecutor simply assume that the person was intoxicated and wait for the person to present evidence that they were not.
A simple workaround would seem to be for the legislature to eliminate §18.2-269 and change §18.2-266 (the part of the DWI statute that sets out the crime) to require negligence in letting one's blood alcohol get above .08 (strict liability instead of negligence would also work, but I tend to get skittish about using that one because a person can commit the crime without even knowing that they have, and this cannot provide a deterrent; see, e.g., Staples v. United States). By changing the offense from being intoxicated to driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 should take care of the constitutional problems.
As a side note, §18.2-266 already provides that one can be convicted of DWI for either being intoxicated and having a blood alcohol above .08. I imagine that prosecutors shy away from the latter one because they have to show that that was the level at the time of driving, not several hours later when they get around to testing the suspect at the station. This would seem to be simply a problem caused by a shortage of the equipment and training needed to verify the blood alcohol levels.
The Fifth Amendment's guarantee that a witness will not be compelled to testify against himself creates the famous "presumption of innocence," and makes unconstitutional any law that requires a criminal defendant to disprove an assumption. In the words of Judge O'Flaherty, "The Fifth Amendment means that the defendant can sit there, not say or do anything, and at the end of the case say, 'Can I go home now?' "
Virginia's DWI law (Va. Code §18.2-269), however, uses breath-based blood alcohol level tests to create a "rebuttable presumption" that the person is intoxicated if their blood alcohol is above .08. In other words, the statute doesn't convict them for having that much alcohol in their blood, but shifts the burden to them to disprove that they were driving while intoxicated. The law requires that the state prove that the person was driving, but lets the prosecutor simply assume that the person was intoxicated and wait for the person to present evidence that they were not.
A simple workaround would seem to be for the legislature to eliminate §18.2-269 and change §18.2-266 (the part of the DWI statute that sets out the crime) to require negligence in letting one's blood alcohol get above .08 (strict liability instead of negligence would also work, but I tend to get skittish about using that one because a person can commit the crime without even knowing that they have, and this cannot provide a deterrent; see, e.g., Staples v. United States). By changing the offense from being intoxicated to driving with a blood alcohol level above .08 should take care of the constitutional problems.
As a side note, §18.2-266 already provides that one can be convicted of DWI for either being intoxicated and having a blood alcohol above .08. I imagine that prosecutors shy away from the latter one because they have to show that that was the level at the time of driving, not several hours later when they get around to testing the suspect at the station. This would seem to be simply a problem caused by a shortage of the equipment and training needed to verify the blood alcohol levels.
Monday, October 24, 2005
On Gold
I say therefore that not gold, as the common opinion cries out, but good soldiers are the sinew of war; for gold is not sufficient to find good soldiers, but good soldiers are quite sufficient to find gold.
--Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book II, Chapter 10, ¶ 2.
--Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Book II, Chapter 10, ¶ 2.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Campus art majors brighten people's days
I really don't know how this idea came up, but it sheer out-of-the-ordinariness sure made my commute a little more fun. Great job, art department.
==EDIT==
Yes, it is a giant tube of red paint.
Biblical Lobbyists
"Rocks don't smite people, people smite people."
--National Big Heavy Stones Association
--National Big Heavy Stones Association
Fun with Crosswalks
Ever wanted to have a good laugh while walking about in a city? Here's a fun one that worked for me -
Terrain: You will need a crosswalk with traffic lights and pedestrian signals (countdown timer is best, but 10-second warning flasher is ok) on a moderately busy city street, preferably not more than four lanes across.
Setup: You are walking down the sidewalk (preferably on the left side of the road) toward the crosswalk with the light green in your direction and plenty of time to spare on the countdown timer. There is crosstraffic waiting at the red light (ideally, the first vehicle in line is a bus or other heavy truck).
Action: As you continue toward the crosswalk, wait until you see the driver of the lead crosstraffic vehicle look at you. While he is watching you, look up at the pedestrian signal and suddenly dash forward as though trying to race the countdown. As you near the intersection, stop short in disgust, perhaps shaking your head that you didn't make it. Watch with amusement as the driver puts his vehicle in gear and eases forward. Bonus points if he covers more than half of the crosswalk width with the front of his machine before discovering the false start. Proceed to cross the street and go on your way.
((((((((((((((((((((((()
As a marginally related matter, have you ever wondered about whether our racist pedestrian controls led to the depopulation of the Indians? After all, look at which direction traffic is going when the "white man cross now" sign flashes, and which direction the traffic is going when the red man "How!" sign is lit...
Terrain: You will need a crosswalk with traffic lights and pedestrian signals (countdown timer is best, but 10-second warning flasher is ok) on a moderately busy city street, preferably not more than four lanes across.
Setup: You are walking down the sidewalk (preferably on the left side of the road) toward the crosswalk with the light green in your direction and plenty of time to spare on the countdown timer. There is crosstraffic waiting at the red light (ideally, the first vehicle in line is a bus or other heavy truck).
Action: As you continue toward the crosswalk, wait until you see the driver of the lead crosstraffic vehicle look at you. While he is watching you, look up at the pedestrian signal and suddenly dash forward as though trying to race the countdown. As you near the intersection, stop short in disgust, perhaps shaking your head that you didn't make it. Watch with amusement as the driver puts his vehicle in gear and eases forward. Bonus points if he covers more than half of the crosswalk width with the front of his machine before discovering the false start. Proceed to cross the street and go on your way.
((((((((((((((((((((((()
As a marginally related matter, have you ever wondered about whether our racist pedestrian controls led to the depopulation of the Indians? After all, look at which direction traffic is going when the "white man cross now" sign flashes, and which direction the traffic is going when the red man "How!" sign is lit...
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Pass on the Comfort
Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.
--II Cor. 1
--II Cor. 1
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Sauce of the Week
I would like to introduce you to my new favorite barbeque sauce:
Safeway Select Honey Mustard Barbecue Sauce. This sauce is a very nice combination of traditional barbeque tastes, a low-key sweetness (hmm... the honey perhaps?), and a secondary bite to the flavor.
This sauce goes well with hot dogs, wursts, and related sausages. It goes a long way to cover otherwise boring or low-quality meats. Also recommended for pork ribs. I have not yet tried it with chicken, but imagine it would work well, particularly if baked with onions and served with rice or corn.
Safeway Select Honey Mustard Barbecue Sauce. This sauce is a very nice combination of traditional barbeque tastes, a low-key sweetness (hmm... the honey perhaps?), and a secondary bite to the flavor.
This sauce goes well with hot dogs, wursts, and related sausages. It goes a long way to cover otherwise boring or low-quality meats. Also recommended for pork ribs. I have not yet tried it with chicken, but imagine it would work well, particularly if baked with onions and served with rice or corn.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Zeph. 3:15-19
The LORD hath taken away thy judgments, he hath cast out thine enemy: the king of Israel, even the LORD, is in the midst of thee: thou shalt not see evil any more.
In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom
the reproach of it was a burden.
Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.
Zephaniah spent the first half of the chapter explaining how the Children of the Lord did not listen, and how the Lord had sent greater and greater reproofs, difficulties, and judgments into their lives in an attempt to get their attention (1-7). It doesn't seem to have been for lack of trying, because God makes it clear that He is the one who finally restores them, as a poor and afflicted people, to righteousness (8-13). It seems that it was only when they gave up trying to live up to being the Children of Promise that they were able to simply BE the Children of Promise; that is to say, the Lord showed them how little and powerless they were next to those around them that they might no longer focus on proving to their neighbors that God was there, but instead, learned to let His praise be sufficient.
It is significant that Zephaniah prophesied during the reign of Josiah, that is, during one the greatest revivals pre-Babylon Israel knew. Zephaniah was warning not an apostate people, but the people who had remembered who God is. Yet they still transgressed against the Lord. They restored the Temple worship, but had they restored worship from their own hearts?
This was a people who had a vision for turning their country into a beacon of God's Righteousness and Power. And what does He tell them? That He will take it away from them and crush them. Why? So that when He removes their enemies, He might be their king.
It should then come as no great surprise when the greatest plans I form for influencing the world for my Savior are torn down before my own eyes. Perhaps I went to a Christian school with the mission of preparing Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values. Perhaps I entered fired with enthusiasm and visions of myself actually doing that. Perhaps by the time I graduated, I had accomplished little more than run some Xeroxes for a Congressman who is going nowhere within the Washington power circle. And perhaps a few years after graduation I have succeeded only in getting a paper-routing job for an agency I once described in a DRW project as not only a complete waste of taxpayer money, but an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Zephaniah indicates that this is the Lord's way. My problem is not with what I am doing. It is that He must first break me of my conceptions of myself as King Josiah leading His people back to righteousness. He must be King in Zion, I must be content that He glorify Himself as such. Then it will not matter whether I am Zephaniah, preaching destruction in the middle of the great revival, or Jeremiah, watching over the destruction of Jerusalem and being arrested for preaching sedition, or Ezra restoring the covenant, or Nagge (Who? No idea. Luke 3:25).
Then I will sing for joy, being glad with all my heart that Christ is glorified, not His servants. The King will be in the midst of us. I will not be struck with debilitating fear that somehow I will mess up rebuilding His kingdom, for I am not rebuilding it. I am only loving and glorifying him, and whether that lands me with the three boys in the fiery furnace or with the generation entering the Promised Land with Joshua, I have only the encouragement "Let not thine hands be slack!" I work not FOR Him, but IN Him. He alone is mighty. He alone rejoices, and covers me with His joy. He rests in His own love - for indeed, "It is Finished" in Him. That rest is mine only because I am in Him. It is rest from my own strife. Rest from my own glory. Rest from my own desires to be great for God. I am not a trumpet announcing His Kingdom. I am a conduit of His rest, of His love. I am that Kingdom, living and showing that Kingdom in my life.
We need not fear for His Kingdom. He is the King and will care for it. He will drive out the enemy in due time. The affliction will end, the shame will end, instead there will be praise and fame. Why? Because it is no longer my glory that will come of it. Because I know better than to think that I have rendered assistance to my Lord. Because I am a broken vessel and trustworthy not to hold in the water of His mercies with which he will water the nations.
In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
I will gather them that are sorrowful for the solemn assembly, who are of thee, to whom
the reproach of it was a burden.
Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.
Zephaniah spent the first half of the chapter explaining how the Children of the Lord did not listen, and how the Lord had sent greater and greater reproofs, difficulties, and judgments into their lives in an attempt to get their attention (1-7). It doesn't seem to have been for lack of trying, because God makes it clear that He is the one who finally restores them, as a poor and afflicted people, to righteousness (8-13). It seems that it was only when they gave up trying to live up to being the Children of Promise that they were able to simply BE the Children of Promise; that is to say, the Lord showed them how little and powerless they were next to those around them that they might no longer focus on proving to their neighbors that God was there, but instead, learned to let His praise be sufficient.
It is significant that Zephaniah prophesied during the reign of Josiah, that is, during one the greatest revivals pre-Babylon Israel knew. Zephaniah was warning not an apostate people, but the people who had remembered who God is. Yet they still transgressed against the Lord. They restored the Temple worship, but had they restored worship from their own hearts?
This was a people who had a vision for turning their country into a beacon of God's Righteousness and Power. And what does He tell them? That He will take it away from them and crush them. Why? So that when He removes their enemies, He might be their king.
It should then come as no great surprise when the greatest plans I form for influencing the world for my Savior are torn down before my own eyes. Perhaps I went to a Christian school with the mission of preparing Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values. Perhaps I entered fired with enthusiasm and visions of myself actually doing that. Perhaps by the time I graduated, I had accomplished little more than run some Xeroxes for a Congressman who is going nowhere within the Washington power circle. And perhaps a few years after graduation I have succeeded only in getting a paper-routing job for an agency I once described in a DRW project as not only a complete waste of taxpayer money, but an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Zephaniah indicates that this is the Lord's way. My problem is not with what I am doing. It is that He must first break me of my conceptions of myself as King Josiah leading His people back to righteousness. He must be King in Zion, I must be content that He glorify Himself as such. Then it will not matter whether I am Zephaniah, preaching destruction in the middle of the great revival, or Jeremiah, watching over the destruction of Jerusalem and being arrested for preaching sedition, or Ezra restoring the covenant, or Nagge (Who? No idea. Luke 3:25).
Then I will sing for joy, being glad with all my heart that Christ is glorified, not His servants. The King will be in the midst of us. I will not be struck with debilitating fear that somehow I will mess up rebuilding His kingdom, for I am not rebuilding it. I am only loving and glorifying him, and whether that lands me with the three boys in the fiery furnace or with the generation entering the Promised Land with Joshua, I have only the encouragement "Let not thine hands be slack!" I work not FOR Him, but IN Him. He alone is mighty. He alone rejoices, and covers me with His joy. He rests in His own love - for indeed, "It is Finished" in Him. That rest is mine only because I am in Him. It is rest from my own strife. Rest from my own glory. Rest from my own desires to be great for God. I am not a trumpet announcing His Kingdom. I am a conduit of His rest, of His love. I am that Kingdom, living and showing that Kingdom in my life.
We need not fear for His Kingdom. He is the King and will care for it. He will drive out the enemy in due time. The affliction will end, the shame will end, instead there will be praise and fame. Why? Because it is no longer my glory that will come of it. Because I know better than to think that I have rendered assistance to my Lord. Because I am a broken vessel and trustworthy not to hold in the water of His mercies with which he will water the nations.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Sake Presentation
I have long admired the ingenuity of oriental civilizations, particularly regarding the many things they manage to make out of rice. So, it naturally followed that once I began sampling alcohols, Japanese rice wine would soon join my repertoir.
Having experimented with some inexpensive Gekkeikan Sake from the local grocer, I have the following to report:
1. Temperature: Best when taken warm (my guess is roughly 110 F). This brings out a lot of the grain flavor and gives it an overall smooth taste. I don't know how the Japanese do it, but I found that using the bottle as a double boiler in a pot of water until condensation began to form on the inside of the bottle was a good means of warming the Sake, but this requires that some of the bottle be emptied first (and be sure the stopper/lid is removed).
Taken cold, it was ok but not good. At room temperature it was little better than drinking nail polish remover.
2. Ware: Atmosphere seems to be very important for this drink. Wine goblets are inappropriate, as are most western looking glasses. China or other "small white cups" (I used a white tea cup with an oriental blue willow pattern) are good for setting a refined mood that is different from normal drinking settings.
3. Content: Just as a side note, the alcohol content of most Sakes is about a fifth higher than most wines. If you are consciencious about how much you imbibe and are used to other low-proof drinks, the difference is noticable.
Having experimented with some inexpensive Gekkeikan Sake from the local grocer, I have the following to report:
1. Temperature: Best when taken warm (my guess is roughly 110 F). This brings out a lot of the grain flavor and gives it an overall smooth taste. I don't know how the Japanese do it, but I found that using the bottle as a double boiler in a pot of water until condensation began to form on the inside of the bottle was a good means of warming the Sake, but this requires that some of the bottle be emptied first (and be sure the stopper/lid is removed).
Taken cold, it was ok but not good. At room temperature it was little better than drinking nail polish remover.
2. Ware: Atmosphere seems to be very important for this drink. Wine goblets are inappropriate, as are most western looking glasses. China or other "small white cups" (I used a white tea cup with an oriental blue willow pattern) are good for setting a refined mood that is different from normal drinking settings.
3. Content: Just as a side note, the alcohol content of most Sakes is about a fifth higher than most wines. If you are consciencious about how much you imbibe and are used to other low-proof drinks, the difference is noticable.
Congrats to Dr. and Mrs. S!
And welcome to autonomous life, little Nicolòs. May you live up to the wisdom and craft of your namesake and keep peace with your siblings. Blessings on all.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
"International Norms" Watch
Israel's Supreme Court has utilized international norms in deciding that Israeli soldiers cannot send Palestinian bystanders into the homes of suspected militants to negotiate the militants' surrender.
As there has already been a nearly-universally-disregarded temporary ban (also put in place by the judiciary) on the practice since 2002, it seems unlikely that the military will abide by the decision.
Given the unique nature of the Palestinian arrangement, the general practices of countries such as Belgium, Canada, and Japan (to say nothing of "dissenters" such as DR Congo, Cambodia, Serbia, etc.) would seem a poor means of evaluating the needs and experience of the Israeli army.
That said, since the Israeli judiciary seems to lack the muscle to enforce decisions such as this, it may prove a useful backdoor way of creating international good-will by paying lip service to the international view of the situation while still reaping the benefits of the practices they have found expedient.
As there has already been a nearly-universally-disregarded temporary ban (also put in place by the judiciary) on the practice since 2002, it seems unlikely that the military will abide by the decision.
Given the unique nature of the Palestinian arrangement, the general practices of countries such as Belgium, Canada, and Japan (to say nothing of "dissenters" such as DR Congo, Cambodia, Serbia, etc.) would seem a poor means of evaluating the needs and experience of the Israeli army.
That said, since the Israeli judiciary seems to lack the muscle to enforce decisions such as this, it may prove a useful backdoor way of creating international good-will by paying lip service to the international view of the situation while still reaping the benefits of the practices they have found expedient.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Red Light Cameras, Money, and Safety
No great suprise, but red light cameras seem to cause crashes. T-bones are down and rear-ending is up, but overall, crashes at cameraed intersections in DC rose about 67% faster than at intersections without cameras.
From an economics standpoint, this should make sense, and it seems a reasonable guess that the crash increase comes from the drivers who would otherwise have been the safest drivers.
For a driver who is already willing to risk the costs, burdens, and pains of a collision for some other gain by saving time (costs x risk < anticipated benefit), racing a light makes economic sense, and the driver will do so. There will be a slight decrease in that number when you add the cost of the ticket (costs x risk + $75 < anticipated benefit), but only if the driver knows about the cameras. The presence of tickets in the equation will tend to shift red-light racing to people who are paid large hourly fees (increasing the anticipated benefit) and to people from out of town (decreasing knowledge of risks).
For a normal rational driver, the costs of getting a ticket will be weighed against the other factors such that there is a slight premium on the side of caution, but one which may be outweighed by other factors (e.g., if there is a bus behind him whose brakes have failed, the $75 fine is a small price to pay to avoid being hit). For him, the equation for racing a light becomes something like [Costs (of being hit running the light) x risk (of being hit running)] - [costs (of being hit NOT running the light) x risk (of being hit while stopping)] + $75 < anticipated benefit.
For someone who is normally a low risk-taker in such situations (the "safe" driver or someone whose "dad will kill me if I get a ticket"), someone who has abnormally high costs involved in being rammed in the side (e.g., Pinto drivers ), or someone who does not anticipate the risks of rear-end collisions, the same equation will lead them to decide to stop with greater frequency. However, those with abnormally high costs will not have much added incentive to safety because they already are so strongly inclined to avoid those costs that the $75 ticket will not, by percent, add much to the costs side of the equation and will so not generally lead to many more situations in which they will stop for the light. For a driver with few anticipated benefits or the greatest shame in being ticketed, however, the nearly-certain prospect of the ticket will have the most effect, meaning that the people most consciencious about keeping (and not being caught breaking) traffic laws which are emphasized by enforcement are the ones who suffer the most under red-light cameras because they are now exposed to an inordinate number of collisions, particularly of the rear-ending type.
Of course, if, as the article hints, the District is more interested in revenue from the cameras than in safety, it would make sense that they would not care which drivers are the ones who pay the costs of their enforcement regime.
From an economics standpoint, this should make sense, and it seems a reasonable guess that the crash increase comes from the drivers who would otherwise have been the safest drivers.
For a driver who is already willing to risk the costs, burdens, and pains of a collision for some other gain by saving time (costs x risk < anticipated benefit), racing a light makes economic sense, and the driver will do so. There will be a slight decrease in that number when you add the cost of the ticket (costs x risk + $75 < anticipated benefit), but only if the driver knows about the cameras. The presence of tickets in the equation will tend to shift red-light racing to people who are paid large hourly fees (increasing the anticipated benefit) and to people from out of town (decreasing knowledge of risks).
For a normal rational driver, the costs of getting a ticket will be weighed against the other factors such that there is a slight premium on the side of caution, but one which may be outweighed by other factors (e.g., if there is a bus behind him whose brakes have failed, the $75 fine is a small price to pay to avoid being hit). For him, the equation for racing a light becomes something like [Costs (of being hit running the light) x risk (of being hit running)] - [costs (of being hit NOT running the light) x risk (of being hit while stopping)] + $75 < anticipated benefit.
For someone who is normally a low risk-taker in such situations (the "safe" driver or someone whose "dad will kill me if I get a ticket"), someone who has abnormally high costs involved in being rammed in the side (e.g., Pinto drivers ), or someone who does not anticipate the risks of rear-end collisions, the same equation will lead them to decide to stop with greater frequency. However, those with abnormally high costs will not have much added incentive to safety because they already are so strongly inclined to avoid those costs that the $75 ticket will not, by percent, add much to the costs side of the equation and will so not generally lead to many more situations in which they will stop for the light. For a driver with few anticipated benefits or the greatest shame in being ticketed, however, the nearly-certain prospect of the ticket will have the most effect, meaning that the people most consciencious about keeping (and not being caught breaking) traffic laws which are emphasized by enforcement are the ones who suffer the most under red-light cameras because they are now exposed to an inordinate number of collisions, particularly of the rear-ending type.
Of course, if, as the article hints, the District is more interested in revenue from the cameras than in safety, it would make sense that they would not care which drivers are the ones who pay the costs of their enforcement regime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)