Why not enforce laws against following too closely?

What causes road "accidents"?

The single most common cause of road accidents has been hotly debated. The provincial government has decided that excessive speed is the number one culprit, and has threatened to install photo radar in an attempt to control speeds in some areas.

This, not surprisingly, has made a lot of people very upset, with the more rabid ones complaining of the coming of a police state. It seems to be these people's opinion that they have every right to break the law, since they do not perceive there to be a safety issue.

My personal view is that "speeding" is a bit of a red herring. Excessive speed for the conditions - whether that be slower or faster than the speed limit - is a factor in many accidents, but there is a common driver behaviour which I claim is more often a factor: tailgating (following too closely).

The "two second rule"

It seems almost universal that new drivers are taught to keep at least a two second gap between their vehicle and the one they are following. Truckers are supposed to maintain at least a four second gap due to the longer stopping distances required.

It also seems universal that if you actually try to do that you will have vehicles cutting in front of you all day. Some people seem especially oblivious to the dangers of tailgating, and/or make a sport of it.

There is a law against following too closely, but it does not seem to me to be vigorously enforced.

Idea: video cameras as part of photo radar

Enforcing the law against following too closely might be possible with an automated system similar to that used to enforce laws against driving too quickly. All that is required is to have a video camera in place of the still camera of a photo radar installation.

The video camera would continuously record traffic passing by, making a note of frames in which the radar shows someone exceeding the speed limit or else passing by less than a minimum length of time after the previous vehicle. I will leave the technological details of the implementation unspecified, although I believe it can all be done with existing, relatively cheap, digital imaging technology.

Who should pay for "video radar"?

It has been estimated that enforcement of traffic regulations and the traffic-related portions of emergency services is being subsidised by approximately $45 million per year (GVRD report, 1993). The installation of "video radar" would not be cheap, and it does not seem right to me that this cost should also be subsidised by the general taxpayer.

In my opinion, road users should be charged the cost of enforcement of traffic laws. Whether all of the cost should be paid by those violating the law is another (difficult) issue which I will not address.

Note that if actually enforcing traffic laws changes people's behaviour and results in fewer collisions, road users may in fact pay less overall due to a reduction in the hospital and insurance costs of traffic accidents.

Of course, the best way to decrease the number of traffic accidents is to decrease the amount of traffic through more pedestrian friendly environments and increased use of (an improved!) public transit system.

Feedback on the idea

"I read with interest your article on following too closely on the Transport Action Web page. You are quite correct that it is a problem but it would be difficult to enforce with your video suggestion because it doesn't follow driving behaviour for any period of time. The traffic courts that I have testified in seem to want a pattern of disregard for a distance along the highway rather than an inadvertent approach which your system would not catch.

"From my point of view, the best way to deal with the following too closely situation is to use aircraft to observe the behaviour from above. You are able to watch more than what is around you in your police vehicle and have a better idea of what the driver has been doing in traffic.