06-06-2009, 12:00 PM
As far as I know, all of the lights in Ontario have the 3 second delay (or longer), even though most intersections aren't equipped with the red light cameras. I don't have a problem with either the delay or the cameras, but skewing the odds by shortening the amber cycle is, to my way of thinking, unethical. It demonstrates to me that the real intent is to generate revenue, with the safety benefits only a side effect, even though they're touted as the raison d'etre.
In major urban centres, the cameras are a permanent fixture at many intersections, while, when they're used in less populous areas, they're portable and can be moved from site to site.
In this province, at least, proceeding through an intersection on the amber signal, when it would have been possible to safely stop, is a traffic violation with the same penalties as driving through a red, a fact of which many drivers are unaware. Even though livestock is prohibited in urban areas, combined with the shortened amber, that, to me, spells "cash cow".
Wayne
In major urban centres, the cameras are a permanent fixture at many intersections, while, when they're used in less populous areas, they're portable and can be moved from site to site.
In this province, at least, proceeding through an intersection on the amber signal, when it would have been possible to safely stop, is a traffic violation with the same penalties as driving through a red, a fact of which many drivers are unaware. Even though livestock is prohibited in urban areas, combined with the shortened amber, that, to me, spells "cash cow".
Wayne