backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by CarAccessoryMa.. on Sep 23 at 10:42 AM


  (Source: wikimedia.org)
A study showed that the number of fatalities increased at intersections after the red-light cameras were put in place

Red-light cameras have proved to be a controversial issue recently, with some saying their presence is vital while others say they're just moneymakers with the potential to be abused

While some members of Raleigh, North Carolina belong in that first category, the city voted to shut down the red-light program when the contract expires for its traffic cameras on September 30 according to WRAL.

Raleigh City Council's 4-3 vote on Tuesday was five votes short of extending the SafeLight Program contract with ACS Xerox, which began in 2003. The purpose of the contract was to reduce the number of auto collisions associated with 
running red lights.

According to a February study, Raleigh saw an increase in fatalities at intersections after the cameras were put in place. The study compared car crashes between 1992 and 1996 (before the cameras were in place) and between 2004 and 2008 (after the cameras were in place). It concluded that there were three fatalities between 1992 and 1996, and nine fatalities between 2004 and 2008. 

Mike Kennon with the Raleigh Public Works Department said he couldn't find the nine fatalities the study found between 2004 and 2008. 

City Manager Russell Allen said a council member could ask to bring up the contract again, and that's exactly what council members Mary Ann Baldwin, Nancy McFarlane and Nancy Crowder plan on doing. They hope to save the program, but it's unclear if they can do so before September 30.

A portion of the $50 fines for running red lights goes to the Wake County Public School System. The school system has received around $500,000 in funding courtesy of the red light cameras.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How many times does it have to be said?
By Creig on 9/21/2011 10:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
Don't want a ticket for running a red light? Then don't run a red light.

Red means "Stop". Not "Stop if you want to".




RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By fleshconsumed on 9/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By ahar on 9/21/2011 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 5
In that case you'd hopefully learn that the red light is the one at the top.


By Flunk on 9/21/2011 11:09:12 AM , Rating: 3
What's what the 3 red-green colorblind people I know do!


By adiposity on 9/21/2011 1:22:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In that case you'd hopefully learn that the red light is the one at the top.


Or the left, if they are sideways.

Or on the left and right, if you are in Canada:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6PSkTwHFwdk/ThuTEf7LUzI/...

Or one the bottom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipperary_Hill


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/21/2011 11:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because red is always at the top of the stack. Also if you managed to pass a driving test, then presumably you are capable of identifying a stop signal. Now if the lights are mounted horizontally then who knows. It's always safe to observe the current traffic patterns and yield. That's the single most important rule that people seem to forget when lights malfunction: when in doubt, yield.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Jeremy87 on 9/21/2011 12:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
With vertical lights, red is always at the top.
With horizontal lights, red is always to the left.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Camikazi on 9/21/2011 3:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not true, not true, not true :P look up Tipperary Hills :P


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By pattycake0147 on 9/21/2011 5:25:49 PM , Rating: 3
Tipperary Hills is an exception where a towns person was upset about the signal and turned it upside down. The town then left it that way. Doesn't really count.


By 91TTZ on 9/22/2011 2:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
That was in 1928. I'm sure that signal has been replaced a few times since then. Why is it always upside down?

Also, if you've ever seen those signals up close they're really big and heavy. A single person is not going to be able to turn it over while nobody is looking.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Egglick on 9/21/2011 11:03:40 AM , Rating: 5
I'd like to see you drive through the city of Chicago for 3 days without getting multiple red-light tickets. Some of these cities and towns intentionally shorten the length of the Yellow light to what seems like milliseconds. You'll be driving along with a green light, and if you don't have the reflexes of a mongoose and stand up on your brake pedal (potentially causing an accident), you'll be getting a red light ticket. Even if you try your hardest to obey the law, just driving around is like running the gauntlet.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By jimbojimbo on 9/21/11, Rating: -1
By Egglick on 9/21/2011 3:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me, how should I know whether I "think I can make it" if the light is currently green?? Should I just stop at all green lights?

Also, have you ever driven a work vehicle which has been loaded down with several hundred pounds of equipment and material? They don't quite have the stopping distance of your Honda Fit. If you're traveling along at 35mph in a laden work vehicle and the green light suddenly goes **BAM-YELLOW-RED** within a fraction of a second, there's not much you can do.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By drycrust3 on 9/21/2011 5:15:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In the city almost all the lights have shorter yellows than in the suburbs

Excuse me for saying so, but isn't that stupid? Or maybe even really really stupid? Accidents (and deaths) are caused when people drive outside the tolerance the law gives them; normally it is the driver who is at fault (e.g. driving while intoxicated means the driver can't consistently drive within the normal tolerances) but in this case it is "the law" that is at fault because by reducing the yellow phase you reduce the "tolerance window" needed to transit an intersection safely.
By shortening the yellow phase you effectively create a hazardous situation where a driver has to accelerate hard and then start braking hard, which is exactly the wrong message you should be giving to drivers. They should be expected to accelerate at the speed of a truck or bus and to brake smoothly.
The short yellow phase means there is more possibility of an accident because by making the "tolerance window" smaller you effectively reduce the tolerance to any speed other than the speed limit and above, assume the exit from the intersection is 500 metres of clear road, and that the vehicle is no longer than a bicycle. Remember this environment is effectively a random event environment, meaning that with a very short yellow phase it is almost certain that some "normal" drivers won't attain the requirements of the small "tolerance window" even though they haven't done anything abnormal.
Surely the opposite is what they should be doing: by making the yellow phase longer you create a bigger "tolerance window" which caters for the "normal" drivers and the outliers in the "normal" peak hours environment.
What the police should be doing is looking for reasons that traffic that is moving too slowly and getting the city council to fix it, ticketing people that are stuck in the intersection when the lights turn red, and installing speed cameras at intersections.


By Invane on 9/22/2011 12:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
It is absolutely stupid. The issue boils down to one simple underlying issue:

Red light cameras generate revenue. They are not there to actually make anyone safer. If you want to make most of these intersections safer, lengthen the yellow light slightly. However, in many cases the contracts with the companies running the lights (who receive more revenue by giving out tickets, not by making the intersection safer) prohibit the city from lengthening the yellow. Often, they try to shorten the yellows.

And just to make this clear, I have never received a ticket for running a red light. But it should be reasonably clear to any individual with a faint glimmer of intelligence as to how the money works out.


By Ryestag on 9/22/2011 12:53:43 AM , Rating: 3
In Austria, Cambodia, Estonia, Latvia, most of Israel, parts of Mexico, Turkey, Russia, and in certain other parts of Europe, the green lights will start flashing at the end of the Go or Turn phase to indicate that the amber (Caution phase) lights are about to be engaged. This is useful in fast paced roads to allow for longer slowing down time, and for pedestrians crossing broad streets.

Some traffic lights in Pennsylvania illuminate the amber light a few seconds before the green light turns off, to give this same warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_variations_in...

This seems like the logical solution. We have red light cameras in Canada and I've noticed an increase in people slowing down coming to a green light (some actually coming to a stop) in order to avoid the quick yellow-red-ticket combo.

It's not about safety, it's about tax revenue.


By espaghetti on 9/22/2011 1:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with Chicago is that the blood sucking city holds you up in the air by your ankles and shakes the hell out of you till every penny and credit card falls on the 234 million dollar sidewalk that looks like shit, so they can drop you on your head and pick up their "budget money".


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/21/2011 11:08:12 AM , Rating: 5
Don't forget about yellow.
Contrary to popular belief, yellow means "clear the intersection if you are already in it", not "enter the intersection and then clear it."


By Flunk on 9/21/2011 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
Right on.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By DaveLessnau on 9/21/2011 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 5
From Starman: "I watched you very carefully. Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088172/quotes


By TSS on 9/21/2011 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Made me remember a line from a dutch comedian, freek de jonge in his song "there's life after death". It goes "Drive slowly through orange, floor the throttle after red, there's life, there's life, after you're dead".

great song ^^ but completly in dutch else i'd link it.


By Philippine Mango on 9/21/2011 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
That may be what it's intended for but the fact of the matter is, if your front wheels are over the white line for the cross walk on the intersection side, you are officially considered in the intersection and therefore if the light turns red at that point, you technically have not run a red light.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By struzzin20 on 9/21/2011 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 1
This is correct by Ohio Law as a peace officer we do not stop any vehicles if the front tires are past the stop / crosswalk bar. Our town was trying to put a camera up and I was one of the officers that did not want it. They are shown to be more dangerous with the cameras in a nearby city.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By pattycake0147 on 9/21/2011 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Peace" officer or 'police' officer? If you are in fact a peace officer please explain what this is as I have not heard the term.


By Omega215D on 9/21/2011 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
Peace officer is the official term for police as they are there to keep the peace and a warmer title than Police. At least that was the answer given to me when I kept seeing "Peace Officer" on all the PD exams.


By Steve1981 on 9/21/2011 12:41:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
yellow means "clear the intersection if you are already in it"


Not exactly:

http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/dl-002a.pdf

Steady Yellow Signal
This means that the signal is changing from
green to red. Its purpose is to provide time for
approaching traffic to stop safely and to clear
other vehicles from the intersection before
the signal turns red. If you are too close to the
intersection to stop safely, continue through the
intersection with care.


By adiposity on 9/21/2011 1:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, yellow means "clear the intersection if you are already in it", not "enter the intersection and then clear it."


It means whatever the code in a particular state/province says it means, not a single definition you quote without citation...

In California

the DMV defines it as:

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm#tr...
quote:
Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you cannot stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Solandri on 9/21/2011 2:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, yellow means "clear the intersection if you are already in it", not "enter the intersection and then clear it."

It is impossible to comply with that definition.

Say you're going 40 mph and require 100 feet to come to a stop if you slam on the brakes. That means if you are less than 100 feet from the intersection when the light turns yellow, you have not yet entered the intersection, but it is physically impossible to stop without entering it. You must "enter the intersection and then clear it" upon seeing the yellow.


By LRonaldHubbs on 9/22/2011 5:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, let me rephrase:
Yellow means "clear the intersection if you are in it or cannot stop", not "accelerate into the intersection and then clear it."


By Schrag4 on 9/22/2011 11:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yes this dead horse seems to be beaten in the comments on every one of these articles. Any "rule" you read is merely a suggestion for how not to get a ticket for still being in the intersection when it's still red (and safely). "Clear the intersection" is the most concise way to convey this. The driver ultimately will have to use their brain to judge speed/distance and determine the safest way to do that.

In very rare cases it will be safer to BE IN THE FREAKIN' INTERSECTION when it turns red! If you find yourself in such a scenario, please take the safer route. A ticket for 50 or 100 bucks is a lot less expensive than automobile insurance deductibles, lost work, hospital bills, and/or funeral expenses.


By Dr of crap on 9/21/2011 12:34:41 PM , Rating: 3
The red light cameras NEED to be set up so that it doesn't take a picture if the car is EXISTING the intersection on the red.

NO ONE I SAYING RUN RED LIGHTS! That is what your post says.

It's the fear of drivers that big brother is always watching with that camera there, and they act stupidly. But then again 90% of drivers act stupidly, but I digress.

If set properly, these cameras should catch the REAL red light runners, not the ones that are in the intersection on the yellow and then it turns red.

And how many accidents are there from the first driver getting rear ended from stopping BEFORE he needs to to avoid the camera?

Now if these do indeed ACTUALLY catch people that are trying to extend the light, and try to get across the intersection when it JUST turned red, then it's the drivers fault. And kudos for getting some of that money to the school, but again if the school is counting on that money - that's another can of worms to open up!


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 1
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing the line "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" in regards to what's happening right now in this country. If you aren't a terrorist than don't complain about getting groped by the TSA? Or if you haven't done anything wrong, than you have nothing to fear from illegal surveillance?

Our rights aren't contingent or conditional on us not doing something wrong. Red light cameras aren't legal, plain and simple. They violate a host of Amendments and Constitutional law as well as exploit shady loopholes of state governments.

It's not about "not wanting" a ticket. It's about big brother tactics and raising revenues. We've already found cases where the yellow light timer was lowered, causing more fatalities, just so they could farm more money! How can you justify that?

We can get into lots of specifics, but the whole "if you've done nothing wrong than..." mindset has allowed our "representatives" to erode freedom after freedom, and I soundly reject your fallacy.


By adiposity on 9/21/2011 2:55:36 PM , Rating: 1
hear, hear.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/21/2011 4:51:32 PM , Rating: 3
What do you mean "illegal surveillance"? I'm going to have to say that if a cop can stand where the camera is without a warrant, then the camera isn't illegal surveillance. On public roads you are in a public place. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding your license plate and face through the windshield.

You may have a point regarding other recent government surveillance methods, but I'm pretty much certain red light cameras pass Constitutional muster. So could you please be explicit regarding the "host of Amendments and Constitutional law" which you claim red light cameras violate?

To be clear, I'm not a fan of red light cameras, but I'm not going to attack them as "illegal", "unconstitutional", or "an erosion of freedom" just because I'm against them. The Constitution and the ideals of freedom do not protect against every bad idea. Specific arguments (like abuse by authorities, which you eventually mention) enrich the debate, and are much more effective in swaying people to our side than vague, nebulous, and easily debunked claims of unconstitutionality.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 6:01:36 PM , Rating: 1
How you can say they aren't Unconstitutional is beyond me. That link I posted didn't really get into the why, so I'll elaborate.

First off the easy one. Right off the bat they cause an equal protection problem in that if two people commit the exact infraction, one person commits an infraction and is seen by a camera, the next person is seen by a police officer. Those two people are treated differently, and the penalties are different, and there is no reasoning behind that other than for the way the person has been witnessed going through the light, and that's one reason why it violates equal protection.

Secondly, since when did County Commissioners become a court of law? They aren't. My 6'th amendment rights are being violated because I cannot face my accuser, a camera.

It could also be argued that the fourth amendment applies in that we are protected from illegal search and seizure. The seizure of our property (money) is illegal in this case because the County is issuing "civil infractions" that we as citizens are not afforded proper legal recourse against. The bottom line is that the system is unfair and circumvents our 6th Amendment rights. The County Commissioners are no court of law. They feel they do not have to meet any burden of proof. The law says differently, our entire legal SYSTEM is based on this!!

Either way claiming these cameras are on firm legal and constitutional ground is rediculous. You aren't just on a slippery slope, you're sliding down the mountain face first.


RE: How many times does it have to be said?
By foolsgambit11 on 9/21/2011 6:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
1. The link you posted has a terrible and sensationalist headline. The text specifically states the judge didn't rule on constitutional grounds, but based on a Florida state law that says only the state can set traffic laws. That law was changed over a year ago, and the cameras are now fully legal in Florida.

2. the Equal Protection issue is one of methodology, not principle. There's no reason the tickets issued by a traffic camera need to be different from a ticket issued on-site by a police officer.

3. The new Florida law has red light camera ticket appeals going before actual judges, not commissioners - other states do likewise; those who don't can and should do likewise.

4. Read the full text of the 4th Amendment - we are protected from "unreasonable search and seizure". A seizure of money for violating a law is reasonable. You are being deprived of property with due process of law, meeting the 5th Amendment requirement as well. With an appeals process heard by a judge (just like all traffic violations), our due process is protected, and therefore the seizure is warranted.

5. Regarding the 6th Amendment, imagine this scenario: You own a store with a CCTV security system. In the middle of the night, someone breaks in and steals your stock. He's caught on camera. Would you argue that you can't accuse him of the theft because his "accuser" is the camera? No. Perhaps, to assuage your concerns, municipalities should have a police officer view each violation flagged by the computer and confirm that the car is over the line before issuing the citation.

Don't get me wrong, there are practical concerns, and not every traffic camera implementation is, by default, constitutional. A judicial appeals process must be guaranteed, for instance. But the concept of traffic cameras isn't by definition unconstitutional.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 7:04:46 PM , Rating: 1
I stand by my arguments. You can play technicalities while big brother makes 1984 a reality all you want.

The damn things don't even reduce accidents anyway! It's a big money grab, they don't give a damn about your safety.

quote:
A seizure of money for violating a law is reasonable.


Yes if the law is legal. However more and more court cases and judges rulings are leading to the conclusion that they aren't.

Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying the government can pass any law it want's and we should be okay with that because it's "legal"? There are supposed to be LIMITS and TERMS on what kinds of laws get put on the books and a just and technical process for getting them passed.

Again, last time I checked, county commissioners weren't law enforcement or part of the judicial branch.


By Noya on 9/22/2011 5:14:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We can get into lots of specifics, but the whole "if you've done nothing wrong than..." mindset has allowed our "representatives" to erode freedom after freedom, and I soundly reject your fallacy.


Really? I could swear after reading this board for years that you and FITcamaro constantly used that very line when people were bitching about similar matters.


By CarAccessoryMan on 9/23/2011 10:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
What you said is true, a red light does mean "stop" but that is not the issue. The issue is the abuse caused by having the cameras in place. It has already been shown by the Texas Transportation Institute that by shortening the timing of a yellow light by one second increases the red-light camera ticket rate by 110%. Further, a vast majority of red-light tickets issued are issued within the first second after a light has changed to red and among those tickets a substantial proportion are issued for running a red light within the first 1/2 second since the light changed to red. And among those, the majority were for a rolling right turn, so for many tickets that are being issued, are not being issued for running through the intersection. Granted, the law requires a driver to stop before turning on red, but a better solution for this would be to require a driver to yield before turning on red or do away with the turn on red law altogether. Local governments use these red-light cameras to increase revenue and pick the pockets of unsuspecting ordinary everyday drivers like you and me, this is not my opinion, it is a fact. On the other hand, if these local governments would ensure that their red-light cameras complied with what the the standard ITE timing formula recommends (found on http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/ ) then the red-camera ticket rate would decrease by 53%. In fact, many cities have been accused of intentionally shortening the length of time a yellow light is activated in order to increase revenues while touting the safety benefits of having red-light cameras in place. That's a bunch of baloney! Red-light cameras are designed to issue tickets as a means of raising revenue for local governments not increase safety. There are others whys to enhance safety besides installing red-light bandits.

Dan Annweiler
Fight Back with Photoblocker
http://photoblocker.us


I hate to say it but...
By Cobra Commander on 9/21/2011 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 3
All this has done is further-prove jurisdictions are doing this for increased revenues.

I am sorry for the deceased' families but 3 fatalities in 4 years is not going to persuade politicians (even local gov't) to institute 30 red light cameras.

They are leveraging that fact to justify the camera installations. The 9 fatalities legitimacy since is irrelevant because ONE intersection's needs do not justify 29 other intersections.

There is tremendous reason why the public has gone from respecting their local law enforcement (decades ago) to loathing them. Enforcing the law to protect and serve is respectable. Enforcing the law to make money is despicable and unethical.




RE: I hate to say it but...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/2011 11:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
It seems a major component of this story has been ignored:

"Mike Kennon with the Raleigh Public Works Department said he couldn't find the nine fatalities the study found between 2004 and 2008."

Clearly the "study" or Mr. Kennon are in error. Perhaps some study into the study is warranted before conclusions are drawn? Having experience in this arena, I know full well how misguided "studies" can be.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/2011 11:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
I found the study by IIHS:
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1151.pdf

Seems Raleigh was one of the minority in this study. The majority of cities where these cameras were installed showed dramatic reductions in fatalities, even after compensating for population, traffic volumes, etc.

The study should re examine Raleigh, however. If a city engineer is claiming no such crashes occurred, you should probably listen. I mean, that's NINE deaths. Probably worth getting the facts straight.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By therealnickdanger on 9/21/2011 11:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
I also wanted to add that if those 9 fatalities really did occur, then Raleigh would be a statistical outlier, meaning that more than likely there have been other changes made to the intersection or the area to contribute the bizarre spike in crashes.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By jimbojimbo on 9/21/2011 1:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. Maybe they opened a bar down the road from there or something. 9 is such a small number statistically speaking it was poor of them to base a big decision on it.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By tng on 9/22/2011 10:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well.... do you know how heartless that sounded? Yes I understand statistics and 9 may or may not be small depending on the data set.

The real point is that it was not just a number, they were people! If there really were 9 people killed in crashes, then it was not a poor decision, it was the correct one.


By therealnickdanger on 9/22/2011 11:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If there really were 9 people killed in crashes, then it was not a poor decision, it was the correct one.

False. I'll fix it for you:

If 9 people really were killed and their deaths were CAUSED by the RLC, THEN it was the correct choice.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By 91TTZ on 9/22/2011 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The real point is that it was not just a number, they were people! If there really were 9 people killed in crashes, then it was not a poor decision, it was the correct one.


I disagree. You cannot always justify taking any measure to save lives even if you could show that it works.

For instance, if I made a law prohibiting that people cannot drive their car for enjoyment I'm sure it would reduce the number of traffic fatalities. But it would be really heavy-handed and would inconvenience tens of millions of people. I could also pass a law stating that people can no longer eat red meat. That also would have a scientific basis behind it and would save lives, but would it really be worth restricting the rights of hundreds of millions of people?


RE: I hate to say it but...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 1:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
So if we commissioned a study to show that the Freedom of Speech was a detriment to our society, correlating with thousands of deaths a year, should it be done away with?

How about food? Heart disease claims thousands of lives a year. At what point do we just ban all fatty foods and sugars?

Yes these are just examples, maybe extreme. But I'm very concerned when I see how easily we are willing to delve into Orewellien territory when we can justify it with studies or show there is a common good.

It seems there's a large number of people who use this type of reasoning when it comes to public policy, and I feel it's dangerous and we should be more vigilant against it.


RE: I hate to say it but...
By 91TTZ on 9/22/2011 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I'm very concerned when I see how easily we are willing to delve into Orewellien territory when we can justify it with studies or show there is a common good. It seems there's a large number of people who use this type of reasoning when it comes to public policy, and I feel it's dangerous and we should be more vigilant against it.


That's because most people haven't put enough thought into these issues to really think them through but they still want to open their mouths and express their opinion.

I also commonly hear people stating that a tenuous relationship should be able to supersede a more direct one. For instance, I've heard people say that if you get sick from poor smoking that it'll affect everyone else's health insurance costs. Therefore they should be able to curb your individual freedom to smoke. I've also heard militant vegans say the same thing about people eating red meat.


Other corelation.
By n0b0dykn0ws on 9/21/2011 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 1
Did they also correlate the number of idiots talking into/typing on their cell phones while driving in 2004 to 2008?

And to all the haters saying it's just money-grubbing; don't run the red light and they won't get any money! Dur!

n0b0dykn0ws




RE: Other corelation.
By DigitalFreak on 9/21/2011 10:52:45 AM , Rating: 4
Only a moron signs their post.


RE: Other corelation.
By n0b0dykn0ws on 9/21/2011 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you're one of the spineless weasels who hates obeying laws and having to pay for it when you're caught.

That's the only reason I can think of for your pitiful response.

That or you're a mouth breather with nothing better to say.

n0b0dykn0ws


RE: Other corelation.
By ClownPuncher on 9/21/2011 2:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he just found your posting style silly.

Signed,

n0b0dykn0ws


RE: Other corelation.
By Reclaimer77 on 9/21/2011 2:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
lawl!

signed,
R3cIai3R77


They do no good.
By jjlj on 9/21/2011 10:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
If someone is going to run a red light at 60MPH or fast enough to kill or hurt someone they are not going to stop just because there is a camera. There already doing something that is distracting them enough to run the red light and it's going to happen regardless.

Here in Houston we voted to remove the cameras and I'm glad.

I was rear ended at a red light camera intersection because I stopped at a yellow light, however it was raining and the person behind me slid into the back of me. I know I had enough time to clear the intersection safely but didn't want to risk a ticket because traffic was moving slow and I don't know what the timing of the camera is.

The person barely hit me, I was in a truck and he was in a car. His front license plate hit my receiver hitch and was knocked off. There was also a nice square hole in his front bumper. Not a scratch on my truck...




RE: They do no good.
By kingmotley on 9/21/2011 12:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
I've been in both situations since the cameras started appearing. They just started appearing in masse the past year or so, and I fear the winter driving. It's going to get ugly with those trying to stop for the red, and those rear ending them.


RE: They do no good.
By Dr of crap on 9/21/2011 12:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
And your statement is what the NEW problem will be from red light cameras.

A FULL disclosure as to the timing of the camera NEEDS to be spelled out very clearly to all drivers before the infractions are inforced.

And hopefully drivers like you aren't hit!


RE: They do no good.
By RU482 on 9/21/2011 1:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
would have been ironic if he had nudged you onto the white line, and you had got a red light ticket.


Agree
By Raiders12 on 9/21/2011 12:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
In my city of Virginia Beach, we started with 1 or 2 experimental cameras, and now they are pretty much EVERYWHERE. I only disagree with them because they create a period of uncertainty for the driver. In our area, traffic isnt a joke, and yellow lights usually mean try and get through. With the cameras at the intersection, it makes a split second, YES I will go through yellow and risk a potential red to, SLAM on the brakes so I don't get a picture/ticket.




RE: Agree
By jimbojimbo on 9/21/2011 1:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying red light cameras aren't the problem, it's the slow thinking drivers.


Just about money
By Mogounus on 9/21/2011 11:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
For NC I don't really see $50 as being much of an incentive to have red light cameras. The amount of money it generates is pretty paltry so I'm not surprised that the council would vote to do away with them if they saw an uptick in fatalities. In California the increase would probably have to be 10x in order for some city to get rid of them. At $450+ per ticket the incentive is pretty big. Especially on the lights that also give citations for not making a complete stop on a right turn when the light is red. If you don't make a complete stop and slowly roll through you will get the same fine as someone who blew through the main intersection. Those are probably the biggest money makers as a they get a lot of unsuspecting drivers.




By Heinrich62 on 9/21/2011 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
The way for a city to make money running cameras is to shorten the yellows.

In California, a new bill - if the Governor signs it - will allow cities to reduce posted speeds by 5 mph, even on streets with a great safety record. That will allow them to shorten yellows, which will increase red light cam ticketing by at least 50%. (Four of the sponsoring cities have red light cams.) Worse, the shortening will increase severe accidents by 30 to 40%. (Source: "Development of Guidelines for Treating Red-Light Running," Texas Transp. Inst. pg 2-20.)

AB 529 is on Gov. Brown's desk for signature - or veto - right now. If you live in California, or visit here, phone him at 916 445-2841, or email him via the form at http://www.gov.ca.gov. Ask him to veto. Also phone your union or professional assn. As soon as possible.

To the supporters of 529: Remember that 529 will increase severe accidents, a lot, just for the $$.




Ridiculous
By masamasa on 9/21/2011 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's probably associated more with people yacking on cell phones or in a rush more than ever to get to where they need to go nowadays, than the cameras themselves. Bizarre.




"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki