Red light cameras
 

Opinions? Cash cow for cities? Invasion of privacy? Virginia has repealed their law after 10 years of enforcement, stating it has caused more rearend collisions. T-bone collisions have shown a very small decrease since the implementation as well. Texas has had it for 16 months, pure trick fk on how it became law, but non the less it is. The repeal is half way through the legislative process as of 15 minutes ago. What are your views? SmileWavy

They are illegal here in Nebraska.

Re: Red light cameras
 

In my area, it is/WAS a cash cow for the red light camera vendor :( ! For a $50 fine, the camera operator received $35, and the city the remaining $15. Fortunately, due to some other laws (that somehow requires the city to direct 90% of such revenue to the school system), the courts have just (within the past week or so) ruled that the city owes the school system 90% of the whole fine (not just their portion)...and they are being discontinued at the end of this month. Ironically, our city officials have always emphatically stated that it was NEVER about the money...only SAFETY (in spite of all the skid marks leading into the camera intersections)...now that the courts have ruled...you never hear the safety aspect...it's now about the MONEY (and how they can't afford to continue)! It's always been a bogus cash cow, the car's tag owner was guilty with no due process (regardless of who was driving), and it'll be a cold day in hell before they ever get the $100 that I owe them :)!!! GRRRRR...you struck a nerve with this one...

I believe they are legal in Illinois because I think the city of Chicago has some, but they are non-existant downstate.

Sorry man. In this state, supposedly all the $dough$ went to safety programs with in the cities, munis. Lockheed made a killing $ wise selling the cameras, that's were most of the revenue went. You have to build the infrastucture initially, then throw in safety programs later. The latter isn't going to ever happen. NC's findings were a part of the debate on the House floor today. We have a distinct problem now where running a red is both a criminal offense, and a civil penalty, depending on how you get caught.:(

Pour yourself a cup of coffee, sit down and take a gander at Matt Labash's excellent piece on traffic cameras.

My favorite nugget: DC didn't pick the "most dangerous" intersections to install cameras (which were installed under cover of the "they're for safety" lie). Instead, it appears DC picked the intersections where they'd make the most money.

Enjoy!

JP

Thanks JP! Interesting stuff indeed... but trust me: It's NOT about the money... Right up there with "I'll respect you in the morning"!!!

ps: As the data implies...I committed the heinous crime (actually a civil penalty here in NC) of entering the intersection .1 second after the light turned red (I remember it well actually). It would have definitely been unsafe imo to attempt to stop under the circumstances (I would have been creamed from behind).

Most traffic enforcement is for revenue primarily; safety is a byproduct. Even with NO safety gain, they'd still do it.

For those who hate the cameras? I've often wondered if a bit of civil disobediance would work. Say a person went to a city council meeting where officialdom endorses these cameras. Say that person took notes of make, model, year, and color of these official's cars. Say a person took digital pics of these car's license plates. Say exact size print-outs were made of these plates, and temporarily placed on a car of the same make, model, color, and say this car started running through red lights where the cameras were in use. :rolleyes:

They have red light AND speed cameras in the Portland area where I work. My co-worker got a ticket in the mail with a picture of him speeding. I think that it is a good thing, simply obey the traffic laws and you won't need to worry about a ticket. The revenue from these citations is much needed here in Oregon.

Right...the Government doesn't have enough money...Oregon is so broke it's going to raise the fee on death certificates. Evidently, they are afraid you'll try to take some of it with you...;)

Oregon has lots of money, the government mismanages and wastes so much of it.

That, I'll agree with. Oregon doesn't have a funding problem, it has a spending problem. Neil Goldschmidt's "consulting" fees comes to mind. Who paid this scumbag the million plus or so? Sadly, indirectly, you and I....:(

You're entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. If the yellow light intervals are set short enough, then it becomes impossible to stop without creating a REAL safety issue. Likewise, if the speed limits on highways are set to low (i.e. 55 mph on a road designed for 70 SAFELY), and 90% of the traffic flow is exceeding the speed limit (including all the troopers who pass me), then where's the logic? In my experiences with interstate driving (where almost EVERYONE is 'going with the flow' at 8-10 mph over), it's the slowpoke who's in the left lane driving the posted speed limit who is the real safety hazard. Unless this nonsense stops, I could envision a trip down I-95 to Fla. and returnimg home with 20-30 speeding tickets :).

Keith

ps: I am a 'good' safe driver, and haven't had a speeding ticket in years.

People run red lights all the time and rarely because they are afraid of being rear-ended if they stop. They just don't want to wait through another cycle.

People also run reds so they can get out of the way of an emergency vehicle. The ticket is in the mail with cameras. An officer probably wouldn't issue a citation in that senario. I don't think its fair.

FIRST, we need "Stoplights" here in Montana.