Teachers Say the Darnedest Things When Their Students Make Mistakes

A kid earlier today was playing a passage marked “legato,” and I was curious as to whether he knew the definition...

ME: So what does this term mean?
KID: Legato.
ME: Yes, the word is “legato,” but do you know what it means?
KID (hesitates): I can’t remember.
ME: So you forgotto?

Kids Continue to Say the Darnedest Things About Musical Terms

This time, it's the word dolce (pronounced DOLE-chay), the Italian musical term for "sweetly"--familiar to many as the name of the cinnamon latte at Starbucks...

ME: What is that word?
KID: "Dohlse"
ME: Not quite.
KID: DOOL-say!
ME: It is like the Spanish dulce. Are you familiar with that word?
KID: Yes!
ME: Whst does it mean?
KID: I don't know.
ME: I thought you did.
KID: I lied!
ME: Any more guesses?
KID: Two?
ME: No, although "doce" is twelve in Spanish.
KID: Blue?

This Isn't About Revenue, But It's Not About Safety Either (At Least Our Safety)

Before I start my main rant today, I should mention the happy thing I read (which doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of publicity around here): A Lubbock legislator has filed a bill that would outlaw red-light cameras in Texas:

s College Station is expanding its red light camera program, a state representative is trying to stop it.

A Lubbock legislator has filed a bill that would end red-light cameras in Texas, and a local driver is offering help.

Lubbock did away with its red-light cameras last year when the citizen group that oversaw the cameras, determined the cameras hadn't made Lubbock's streets any safer.

At that time, the cameras also hadn't made Lubbock any money. A College Station man is supporting that Lubbock legislator; he says money is what the cameras are all about.

Jim Ash has been fighting College Station's red-light cameras in court, through a website, and with his G-P-S, since being issued a citation last fall. Now he may be taking his case all the way to the Texas capitol.

State Representative Carl Isett, of Lubbock has filed a bill to outlaw red-light cameras. "I immediately contacted him," said Jim Ash.

If the bill makes it through committee, "i'll go and testify to what I know about the red-light cameras here in College Station," said Ash.

Ash thinks he knows a lot, because he's been doing a little homework.

"This is about 2000 pages of documents," said Ash. Ash said he obtained the documents through a public records request. "I've reviewed every single line of it." Ash said the documents all relate to College Station's red-light cameras. "This stack of paperwork on my desk, 90% of this is about the money and protecting the income stream."

Its a conclusion Ash said he finds infuriating. "When they tell us its about safety and every document I have says its about revenue, it's wrong."

Agreed. (Click the "Red-Light Cameras" tag at the bottom of this post to read my thoughts on this subject.)

There are some good back-and-forth comments at Michael Silence's blog. I feel especially bad for commenter "billl," who got caught in a no-win situation:

turning left with the green arrow in tucson. pedestrian in cross walk taking his time. light turned and got my pic taken. couldn't run over -ped . screwed $300

D'oh.

But that's not my main traffic topic for today. This is: The fairly recent traffic law here in Texas that requires motorists approaching an emergency vehicle to either vacate the lane next to that vehicle or slow down to 20 MPH below the speed limit. (The story at the link says that the law went into effect in 2003, but it's only gotten a lot of publicity in the past few years.)

I understand why they did it--it makes it safer for the officers and whomever they might be helping/ticketing/etc. But as more people have become aware of the law, it's caused a nightmare for the "innocent bydrivers" on the road.

My trip to Waco this past weekend was a great example, as I ran into ridiculous traffic jams in the oddest of places. West, for example. The Central Texas town is known for things like Westfest and the Czech Stop--not a Dallas-like traffic jam on a Sunday afternoon. But that's what we had on my trip down on Sunday, and the reason only became apparent after several miles of brake lights: An officer had pulled over an 18-wheeler, and people in the right lane were either 1) slamming on their brakes to slow down to 20-below, or 2) trying to pull into the left lane, which caused people in that lane to also slam on their brakes (assuming they hadn't done so already as a copycat move when the people in the right lane did it). This was not what I would call a safe situation, all in the name of being able to issue a single traffic ticket.

But a few miles down the road, on the outskirts of Waco, the same exact thing happened again. Only this one was even more frustrating, because the officer in question didn't even have anyone pulled over; he was simply sitting on the right-hand shoulder with lights a-flashing, for absolutely no reason. This was not a safe situation either, and there seemed to be no explanation for it.

Don't get me wrong--I'm all about keeping our public safety officers out of harm's way; they do a dangerous and necessary job. But surely there's a way to keep them safe without endangering the rest of us. Many people seem to slam on their brakes in the presence of a law enforcement vehicle anyway, and this law just makes it worse.

I'm at a loss, though, for ideas as to exactly how to do this, but there has to be a way. Any suggestions? Feel free to leave a comment.

Erin go blog: Happy St. Patrick's Day to my fellow Irish laddies and lassies (and aren't we all a bit Irish today?). Did you remember to wear your green today? (Admittedly, this would be more fun if it were a school day, as the kids go to great lengths to attach something green to themselves to avoid the inevitable pinching.)

Putting the Brakes on One Red-Light Camera Scenario, and Another One That Needs to Be Stopped

I've already expressed my disdain for red-light cameras in many posts on this blog (click the tag with that title at the bottom of this post to see more), so I was happy last week to see that a judge reaffirmed a ruling that would appear to help ensure that the companies running the cameras are totally above-board:

A state district judge reaffirmed his ruling today that the company providing red-light cameras to the city of Dallas is required by the Texas Occupations Code to have an investigations license.

While the ruling could eventually affect the millions of dollars in fines collected from motorists for running red lights in Texas, the judge as well as attorneys for both sides of a civil lawsuit said there is no immediate impact.

“The city has outsourced some of its responsibilities,” said State District Judge Craig Smith, adding that his ruling “has no legal impact until we get a final judgment.”

The ruling, originally made by Judge Smith in November, is part of a lawsuit filed against ACS State and Local Solutions by Dallas attorney Lloyd Ward after his wife, Amanda Ward, received a citation in 2007.

Mr. Ward also has filed class-action lawsuits against two other companies that operate red-light cameras for dozens of Texas cities.

Good for him, and good for Judge Smith. If you really want to catch the most egregious red-light runners, put more officers on the street. While the cameras may have prevented a few more T-bone collisions, they've been shown in various locations to increase rear-end collisions for people who stop on yellow to avoid a ticket, and no driver should ever be put into the position of having to choose between what is legal and what is safe. And besides, if this really were all about safety and not revenue, cities wouldn't be taking down some of the cameras that weren't making money.

And while we're on the subject, Instapundit links to a report of some Maryland teenagers using speed cameras (perhaps an even more odious cousin of the red-light cams) to play a very expensive prank on other people:

As a prank, students from local high schools have been taking advantage of the county's Speed Camera Program in order to exact revenge on people who they believe have wronged them in the past, including other students and even teachers.
Students from Richard Montgomery High School dubbed the prank the Speed Camera "Pimping" game, according to a parent of a student enrolled at one of the high schools.
Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that "mimic" those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.
Students are even obtaining vehicles from their friends that are similar or identical to the make and model of the car owned by the targeted victim, according to the parent.
"This game is very disturbing," the parent said. "Especially since unsuspecting parents will also be victimized through receipt of unwarranted photo speed tickets.
The parent said that "our civil rights are exploited," and the entire premise behind the Speed Camera Program is called into question as a result of the growing this fad among students.

You almost have to give these kids some very minor props for their cleverness, even while hoping that their creativity and energy will be used for a higher purpose in the future. But if their actions draw attention to the negative aspects of the camera program, perhaps there's a sliver lining after all.

All caught up: I've taken advantage of the holiday to catch up on some unfinished posts from the last few days; here are the links to them, both to save you the scrolling time and so that all my work isn't for naught:

• An innovative new way to pay for college: Human capital contracts.


• An interesting story about Beethoven and the Illuminati.


• On Saturday, the Dallas/Ft. Worth area bade farewell to Texas Stadium.

With any luck, I'll be posting in a timely fashion for at least the duration of the holiday.

If This Is True, Someone Should Give This Idea the Red Light

I've mentioned my opposition to red-light cameras in many, many posts here (click the link so named at the bottom to see them all), and, indeed, some areas (including Dallas) have started to cut back on them, often because they weren't generating revenue (yeah, we knew it was never really about safety, guys).

My suburb of Garland was one of the first areas to start using them, and one of the first cameras to go in is located very close to my neighborhood. Only the northbound direction had a camera in place, and it was announced by a warning sign a few yards ahead of the intersection. So I was very surprised this morning, while driving down that road, to see a warning sign on the southbound side as well. But when I passed the intersection, I was surprised twice: First, because there wasn't a camera to go with the southbound warning sign; and second, because the northbound camera appeared to be gone as well!

I've read about the idea of using dummy cameras to trick people into thinking that there were cameras around so that they would alter their driving behaviors accordingly; is this what's going on here? I could see leaving up the sign on the northbound side, because many people wouldn't even notice that the camera was gone. But why trick people on the side that never had a camera in the first place? Won't everyone end up doing what I did--look to see where the camera is, only to discover that it's not there?

I'll admit that I'm a one-issue guy on this one. As someone who experienced a rear-end collision several years ago (with an uninsured driver to boot), it's always been my concern that the use of these cameras would lead to more such collisions, and statistics seem to bear this out. I hate that we're sometimes forced to make a choice between what's safe and what's legal. But what I saw this morning just confuses me...

Incidentally, here's a roundupof stories about states cutting back or pulling the plug entirely on the cameras, from Knoxville, Tennessee blogger Michael Silence, (who calls them "revenue-light" cameras. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

UPDATE: The traffic cameras in Mount Carmel, TN are catching police officers in the act of running red lights themselves. Even worse, it appears that the state Highway Patrol (a.k.a. Tennessee taxpayers) will be paying the fines. (Also from Silence, again via Instapundit.)

Policing run amok: In the Collin County town of Melissa, a guy was arrested for signaling without turning. That's right--not ticketed, but arrested. And strip-searched, and forced to share a cell with druggies for three hours. Sure, I've often wished that people would get more tickets for this offense, but being thrown in jail? That's way over the top.

But Wait...I Thought It Was All About Safety?

If you're here in the DFW area, you may have heard by now that the city of Dallas has shut off nearly a fourth of its red-light cameras. Why? Because they weren't making enough money to pay for their operation:

Initial gross revenue estimates for the red light camera system during Dallas' 2007-08 fiscal year were $14.8 million, according to city records. The latest estimate? About $6.2 million. City Manager Mary Suhm on Friday estimated net revenue will fall $4.1 million under initial estimates.

That leaves Dallas government with a conundrum. Its red light camera system has been an effective deterrent to motorists running red lights – some monitored intersections have experienced a more than 50 percent reduction. But decreased revenue from red light-running violations means significantly less revenue to maintain the camera program and otherwise fuel the city's general fund.

Sure, part of the problem comes from a new state law that requires cities to send a portion of camera revenue to Austin. But still...everyone kept saying this was all about safety. Were they trying to pull something over on us all along?

At least one Dallas City Council member agrees with my sentiments:

Council member Angela Hunt, long skeptical of the reasoning behind such camera systems, says she's not surprised Dallas is faced with altering its efforts to reduce red light running.

"The idea of the red light cameras is that they'll be used as a revenue generator instead of being implemented for public safety purposes. It's imperative that the council review this program, especially when the results don't align with the initial performance projections," Ms. Hunt said.

She cited national statistics suggesting that the cameras increase rear-end collisions.

And as anyone who's been reading this blog for a while probably knows, that's the origin of my only real dog in this fight. Four years ago last week, I was rear-ended at a signalized intersection (by an uninsured soccer mom, from whom neither I nor my insurance company ever got a single dime), and, even though she hit me when I'd been stopped for quite some time, I would have actually gone through the yellow light on that day had I not known that my town had recently installed some of the cameras (not realizing at the time that such intersections were precded by warning signs).

Well, once you've been rear-ended (especially myself, since I keep the tools of the trade--my horns--in the trunk), you try to avoid that if at all possible. On my main teaching route, there's a segment where three out of four signals have the cameras, and I can't tell you how much I've done to try to avoid having anyone too close in front of me or behind me in those areas, just in case the light turns yellow. Sure, if I were the first in line, I might well run it if someone was too close behind me, but what if someone in front of me panicked and hit the brakes? Granted, in the first scenario, I'd be risking a citation, but it's always seemed wrong to me to have to choose between what is safe and what is legal.

At any rate, as someone pointed out on the radio yesterday, if it were really all about safety, the city would spend the necessary money to keep the cameras up. The fact that they bailed so quickly seems to support the idea that they really were all about revenue in the first place.

(I do like the idea expressed in the DMN article that they should just leave the cameras up even if they're turned off, as it's likely to serve as a deterrent to the ignorant, or those who just plain forgot.)


Instapundit takes notice as well, and he also points out that they're not doing so well, money-wise (if for a completely different reason) in his hometown of Knoxville either.

They'd need more than cameras to help this guy: A California man crashed two cars on the same highway within a span of about three hours for the same reason: He fell asleep while driving.

I'm glad the cameras weren't running for this guy: A man in suburban New York is charged with going through a Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru with no pants on .

Do as I say, not as I (hic) do: Meanwhile, a Massachusetts driving-school instructor has pleaded guilty to being drunk while teaching a driving lesson.