I heard a story a while back about them making the yellow period shorter right after a cam is installed. Anyone else heard that as well?

Truly a brilliant idea.

The problem is this: In order to avoid the appearance of being "do-nothing" and thereby in jeopardy of losing one's position of elected power, lawmakers constantly feel compelled to pass new legislation and to grandstand at every opportunity ("oh won't someone please think of the CHILDREN!!!") As such, you get what we have today, a law, regulation or ordinance about every damn thing imaginable covering every human activity from birth to death (inclusive), how we dress, how we speak, how we interact, how we function and even how we take a schit. It's absurd. Without knowing, I can pretty much guarantee I'm breaking at least three laws sitting here at home typing this.

King George would appreciate the irony that the descendants of his former colonists have come full-circle to virtual totalitarianism.

That's how it works. The mfr will install for free for a percentage of the take and explain to the govt that the shorter the yellow, the more money. It is an equation that has been proven numerous times.

So the problem is with the ethical use of the cameras rather than the cameras themselves?

Both, from my perspective. The cameras have since been removed in my area, but I'm convinced they caused more (total) accidents than they prevented...all you have to do is notice the skid marks at those intersections. If the cameras were really about safety, there are much "better" ways. I also have a REAL problem with the privatization of "fines", and the whole process of contesting the fine. In my area, the "vendor" received 90% of the fines (...talk about a business I'd like to be in), but it was still "easy money" for the politicos to spend. I ignored the only ticket I recieved for several years, and never heard anything more from it...there is/was no "teeth" in the collection process either :).

National Motorist Association has been fighting red light and speeding cameras for years in the courts. Almost every issue has state camera issues information and how to fight the ticket.

A local attorney took up the cause here several years ago, and that "indirectly" led to the removal of the cameras.

ps: ...see, lawyers aren't all bad :)

We deliberately starve, out of hatred, our public agencies. They struggle to make budgets work, and gubmit-haters make it worse at the next opportunity. Some of you imagine that 90% of gubmit budgets are for stuff like buying tuxedos for meth addicts and of course that's fantasy, but it helps you hang onto that beloved hatred. In the meantime, here comes this opportunity.

I also notice that 90% of these revenues go to a private business. And so, the greed and opportunism of these private companies, plus the difficulty of paying for needed overtime or replacement vehicles for fire fighters and police officers, brings this on. And you guys don't see the connection.

No, I'm not justifying these signal cameras. POP conveniently, I guess, did not read my remarks. I guess you guys are going to form your belief structure.......and then ignore the facts that might endanger your conclusions. If you listen to POP, you'd conclude, with him, that even if the citizens of Mayberry voted to eliminate the cameras and oust the City Council members that approved it.....nothing would happen. Well, if this is not a democracy, then you guys might want to get an Atlas and plan where, outside the United States, you're going to relocate your families. If I believed half of what you guys conclude, I'd move. But I don't. And since you do......I wonder when we can anticipate you'll be leaving. It would help, if you did. The rest of us actually think that government can be bent to the will of the people and we can prove that......if you people who hate democracy and gubmit would recuse. How 'bout it, fellas? I really would like for my country to operate efficiently. And I really do think your beliefs are antagonistic to that.

They wouldn't be starving if there weren't so many of them with their hands in my pockets!

+1

For a person who wants us all to believe that government is accountable to the people, Supe certainly gets defensive about being called on the mat to justify the actions/expenditures of government or when someone dares to claim that there is inefficiency and waste in government priorities.

My position does not change. My hypothesis is that fully 90% of government dollars are wasted and do not directly benefit the constituency-at-large. The next step in the scientific method is to test that hypothesis and either support or refute it. I challenge you do do so.

Convince me that the TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars I'm paying every year to our smilin' band o' bureaucrats is well-spent and benefits me. Convince me. I'll be here.

Roads and bridges?

Some essential ones can fall under the 10% of "necessary" expenditures, the rest could easily be privatized with tolls collected at the discretion of the owners. I'd have no problem with that.

Chicago has many cameras at intersections. They brag about a 95% conviction rate. I have seen pics of these infractions. They send you 3 frames of the car and a close up of the license plate. It's hard to dispute the violation.

Additionally, the city hired a service to patrol neighborhoods looking at parked cars that have missing city stickers, expired plates, missing plates, one plate and other infractions. The vehicle is a van that has cameras perched on either side of the vehicle. The computer can run a check on a plate or vin number in less than 5 seconds. It can see a license plate 3 inches away from the next parked car. Each violation is $50.

The city loves cameras and plans more. FYI: I spent several week in the UK last year and they have cameras everywhere; on roads, highways, public buildings and places, transportation hubs, bars, etc. The locals know the cameras on the roads and highways general allot or revenue; its not a security issue.

But I believe we, in the USA, will see more cameras. We are behind the English but it's only a matter of time.

Gray,

Can you confirm this?

The last I heard is Raleigh raised the fine to $75

If they sent the ticket to the vehicle, that'd be fine, but instead, they send the ticket to the "registered owner" (since they don't know who was driving), and the "owner" must prove their innocence. Don't you remember junior high civics class..."guilty until proven innocent"? I was guilty as hell, but will not waive my rights to face my accuser and offer an explanation (IMO, a REAL police officer probably would not have even stopped me for entering the intersection .1 seconds too late after a VERY short yellow light). Camera's don't lie, but they certainly don't depict the complete scenario either much of the time. I don't know about statewide (NC), but in my area Greensboro/High Point, the cameras were removed because the required percentage of the funds didn't go to the schools (i.e. 90% of the TOTAL fine (not just 90% of the 10% that the cities actually received)). It was going to cost the politicos precious $$$ out of their budgets to keep the red light program, and suddenly, it wasn't a "safety issue" any more...imagine that?

No, POP. I'm not going to chase wild geese because you've lost touch with reality. 90% is waste? And so.....police, fire, roads, bridges, water......those things comprise less than 10% of gubmit budget? It would make more sense for me to argue with my eight month-old nephew. I don't have the time and if I did, I'm just not stupid enough to joust with a windmill. Go find another Don Quixote.

Exactly. Society has all types of technology available to increase safety at an intersection. Yet, the crooks use technology to rake in money under the guise of safety. It pisses me off. The sensors used to 'find' the offending car in the intersection is sophisticated enough to help control the intersection better. --yet it's not. . . it's all about taking money...lots of money.

Nat'l Motorist Ass says start a fantom small business and register the car in it. They can't send a ticket to a business. Maybe the info is on their site?

Keith,


You are correct; they send it to the registered owner. The burden is on the owner to prove that another person was using the vehicle. To write or call to prove your innocense is very time consuming; probably a good reason for the high conviction rate. I guess it's guilt until proven innocent except in camera cases and income tax issues.

I don't live in Chicago, so I'm not sure where the money goes but many communities have embraced cameras because it has reduced gang and drug acitivity on street corners and other public places. What it does is move the problem, hopefully out of their neighborhood.

Don't think for a moment this is going away. The Chicago mayor went to England to look at their program. We're closer to big brother than you think.

I love how we (as a society) are contracting out essential government functions (like law enforcement) to make room for non-essential services (like more social programs).