Ron Paul Activists take aim at Local Red Light Cams

[evadmurd]

The Tennessee Liberty Alliance (http://www.tnliberty.org), a loose but rapidly organizing group of Ron Paul loyalists in Tennessee have taken aim at their local city council's attempts at installing red light cameras in their community.

Taking the stand that these cameras are nothing more than revenue generators sold to the community as a "safety improvement opportunity", the alliance is holding firm to their roots of "less government...more freedom." Studies indicate that these cameras do nothing for the overall safety record of individual intersections, and in fact may cause more accidents. Red light cameras also remove the presumption of innocence, and instead presume guilt requiring the individual to potentially incriminate themselves in the attempt to prove innocence. Amazingly unconstitutional.

The TLA supports safety improvement, but not at the expense of the trampling of the personal and civil liberties of the citizens. They are sponsoring a public meeting within Oak Ridge, TN to shed some light on real reasons for these cameras and have retained the help of local engineers, and legal experts on the issue, to speak to the community and answer questions. They have invited members of the city government to attend and have already held radio interviews on the topic.

THIS is how we make a difference. Taking the Ron Paul message of less government and more freedom to the local level and educating the public on the dangers of these little attacks by small government.

Come visit the site and feel free to comment...http://www.tnliberty.org.

[fletcher]

There is a red light camera (which is no longer in use) by me that has a Ron Paul sticker on the back of it. Someone must have brought a ladder to put it there because it is 15 feet off the ground.

[constituent]

awesome

[slamhead]

One of my biggest pet peeves are those nagometers that flash your speed. These mobile units are all over our city. It will be a matter of time before they put a camera in them and start issuing tickets.

[FunkBuddha]

I noticed the website says Oak Ridge Chapter. Is there a Knoxville Chapter of the TN Liberty Alliance?

[ARealConservative]

rear end collisions increase at intersections that have these.

People realize they are running a yellow and they slam on the brakes to prevent a ticket by mail, then the person behind them slams into them.

Our city shut them down over a lawsuit, the fact that the owner of the vehicle is ticketed, not the person driving, makes them easy to beat in court.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

This is one of my specialties.

TLA, if you'd like expert testimony about how 'red light cameras'
can (and often are) extremely dangerous, let me know!

Hunter

p.s. I already spoke in front of the N.H. Senate against mandatory
seat belts, which I'm happy to report can smashed with a vote of 16 to 8.

[surf]

In San Diego they decreased the time of a yellow light - and the camera company got a portion of the "revenues...."

[limequat]

The Tennessee Liberty Alliance (http://www.tnliberty.org), a loose but rapidly organizing group of Ron Paul loyalists in Tennessee have taken aim at their local city council's attempts at installing red light cameras in their community.

Taking the stand that these cameras are nothing more than revenue generators sold to the community as a "safety improvement opportunity", the alliance is holding firm to their roots of "less government...more freedom." Studies indicate that these cameras do nothing for the overall safety record of individual intersections, and in fact may cause more accidents. Red light cameras also remove the presumption of innocence, and instead presume guilt requiring the individual to potentially incriminate themselves in the attempt to prove innocence. Amazingly unconstitutional.

The TLA supports safety improvement, but not at the expense of the trampling of the personal and civil liberties of the citizens. They are sponsoring a public meeting within Oak Ridge, TN to shed some light on real reasons for these cameras and have retained the help of local engineers, and legal experts on the issue, to speak to the community and answer questions. They have invited members of the city government to attend and have already held radio interviews on the topic.

THIS is how we make a difference. Taking the Ron Paul message of less government and more freedom to the local level and educating the public on the dangers of these little attacks by small government.

Come visit the site and feel free to comment...http://www.tnliberty.org.

I wish we could start playing offense instead of defense, though.

[Primbs]

They have cameras in most of DC. There are very few cameras near capitol Hill where law makers and their staffs might get tickets. But in other parts of D.C. there are many cameras.

[torchbearer]

We are doing the same thing in Alexandria,LA May 20th

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1334/

[freedom-maniac]

I applaud your efforts here. I believe changing local government is much easier than changing D.C.

[Sandra]

Torchbearer, have you been watching the discussions in the state senate? NO SUPPORT!!!!! :D

[rancher89]

I saw a report somewhere that people are using slingshots to bust the lens on the cameras in Britain.

[FunkBuddha]

I saw a report somewhere that people are using slingshots to bust the lens on the cameras in Britain.

They're also "necklacing" them. That is, hanging a rubber tire over the top of it and lighting it on fire. The black smoke and heat destroy the cameras.

[RideTheDirt]

Fuck those thing, I have one right down the street from my house. I wish i could sue because of the gas I waste not going that way because i don't want a fucking ticket. Also, a cop told my dad it is also being used to bust a dealer that lives in view of the camera. FUCK THAT.

I wish i could take a fucking mallet to those damn things.

[torchbearer]

Fuck those thing, I have one right down the street from my house. I wish i could sue because of the gas I waste not going that way because i don't want a fucking ticket. Also, a cop told my dad it is also being used to bust a dealer that lives in view of the camera. FUCK THAT.

I wish i could take a fucking mallet to those damn things.

There is a class action lawsuit against the city of Lafayette, Louisiana for putting up those cameras.
Todd Elliot, who is apart of the lawsuit, will be speaking at our city hall meeting May 20th.

[MozoVote]

For about a year, Charlotte was using them in unmarked white vans. As usual, the ostensible explanation was "safety". But of course, there was a revenue sharing component.

Funny thing... when a court ruled that the revenues should go to the county school district, the city "lost interest" in the cameras and the remaining contract with the vendor was quietly bought out.

The legislator that started this is Martha Alexander, based in a solidly Democratic district of Dilworth/Sedgefield of Charlotte.

[Pauliana]

I hate those things

[rathskeller]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

[MozoVote]

The problem with cameras is they have no "context" to the situation. If the driver in front of me stops at the other side of the intersection, then resumes, I may have briefly stopped *in* the intersection. A police officer observing this, can understand the problem. A camera just gathers evidence that can be used against you, and your explanations are irrelevant.

[limequat]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

Link to said studies?

Doesn't matter anyway. There are numerous issues aside from any alleged "safety" benefits.
For instance, how far through the intersection do you need to be before the light turns red? In some cities this line is not even marked!

Also, don't let your personal biases get in the way of other people's liberty. It's illegal to run red lights with or without cameras. We don't need gestapo tactics to enforce the law.

[Andrew76]

Yes! Love the assertive action on the part of the TLA. When do we get one in Missouri? ;)

There was actually a top notch investigative journalism peice on this very topic in our (usually) crappy weekly newspaper. They cited the studies, done in Texas I believe, proving that while a) t-bone style, mid-intersection accidents do go down, however b) rear end accidents consistently go up. Aside from the sheer, breathtaking unconstitutionality of traffic cameras which basically decide you're guilty and force you to prove your innocence, a further Texas study proved that you had a lessened number of cars running red lights/accidents if you simply extended the duration of the yellow light signal. I'm not making this up, and no, I won't hand feed you the links to the articles (those who doubt what I say). Look it up. The weekly paper was the St. Louis River Front Times.
AND, they uncovered this amazing gem: up until mid-March of this year, there was no actual law that could do anything to you if you decided not to pay the ticket (which was/is an automatic $100.oo fine, even if your car is not moving, but simply over the white line). I believe they now passed some provision whereupon the city can now issue a warrant for your arrest, fine you more, confiscate your car, or some other such nonsense. Civil liberties lawyers were quoted in this article as saying this would *never* stand up in court as again, it's wildly unconstitutional, and a picture/video doesn't stand alone in court as evidence to prove you guilty.

Let the red lights do their job. People, cars are dangerous because they move fast. There is simply no way to completely reduce all risks associated with cars. Don't like it? Stay away from roads. You do not have a *right* to safety at the expense of others.

[Primbs]

cameras in private residences — there is no doubt that even more crimes could be prevented. Domestic abuse would drop dramatically. Trafficking in drugs certainly would be more difficult. The home-invasion artists would be put out of business.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080501/METRO/557620114

[ARealConservative]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

you don't address how they ticket the owner and not the operator of the vehicle.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

cameras in private residences — there is no doubt that even more crimes could be prevented. Domestic abuse would drop dramatically. Trafficking in drugs certainly would be more difficult. The home-invasion artists would be put out of business.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080501/METRO/557620114

this is completely unrelated.


As far as 'safety due to red light cameras'?
Well, it's not safer... it may prevent a few specific accidents
but it creates a whole slue of new types of accidents... even fatalities!

As with most every thing in life, 'education of the individual (not limiting
the individual) is how we evolve!

This is the knowledge that I write about in my books:

"The Complete Science of Driving; A Guaranteed Increase of Safety,
Power, Confidence, Freedom and Control!"
read about it at www.rushhourrelief.com

and

"247 Gas Saving Tips to Help Save Gas, Pay Less for Gas & Get More
Miles Per Gallon 24/7!"
read about it at www.savegasnow.org

Hunter

p.s. If you want expert testimony about 'red light cameras being unsafe,'
let me know!

[JMann]

I'm sure it won't be long before their are some people wanting to push helmet use when driving. Head injuries are a leading cause of traffic injury and death, if we by require helmet use we can save many lives. Not to mention it will prevent people from eating and talking on a cell phone which are both as dangerous as drinking and driving.

[limequat]

I'm sure it won't be long before their are some people wanting to push helmet use when driving. Head injuries are a leading cause of traffic injury and death, if we by require helmet use we can save many lives. Not to mention it will prevent people from eating and talking on a cell phone which are both as dangerous as drinking and driving.

It's much worse than that. The auto industry is now working on car-to-car communication, the goal is eliminating the driver all together.

[surf]

the goal is eliminating the driver all together

i like this goal. hell, i'd rather plug in where i want to go and drink a beer or smoke something while my "pod" delivers me somewhere - and i'll watch the scenery go by.

in the meantime, i'd rather see my "security" costs (i.e. policing and prosecuting funds) go to preventing real crimes and prosecuting real criminals. and its disgusting how so many courts have found these cameras to be constitutional when they clearly are not.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

i like this goal. hell, i'd rather plug in where i want to go and drink a beer or smoke something while my "pod" delivers me somewhere - and i'll watch the scenery go by.

in the meantime, i'd rather see my "security" costs (i.e. policing and prosecuting funds) go to preventing real crimes and prosecuting real criminals. and its disgusting how so many courts have found these cameras to be constitutional when they clearly are not.

I truly hope you are being sarcastic.

Driving is one of our last remaining freedoms. To eliminate it
would be a tragic step in the wrong direction.

Not to mention, acquiring driving skills is valuable life building
tool that every can use to better their life, their reaction skills,
their self esteem, their personal responsibility, etc...

I will never give up my right or freedom to drive!

Hunter

p.s. If you want to see people become really stupid and
irresponsible, take away their choice to build driving skills!!!

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I truly hope you are being sarcastic.

Driving is one of our last remaining freedoms. To eliminate it
would be a tragic step in the wrong direction.

Not to mention, acquiring driving skills is valuable life building
tool that every can use to better their life, their reaction skills,
their self esteem, their personal responsibility, etc...

I will never give up my right or freedom to drive!

Hunter

p.s. If you want to see people become really stupid and
irresponsible, take away their choice to build driving skills!!!

What about cloth washing skills? Fuck these washing machines, I want blisters on my hands.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

What about cloth washing skills? Fuck these washing machines, I want blisters on my hands.

yes, washing machines did eliminate a certain amount
of skill building and created some laziness.

p.s. You sound like a politician, are you sure you're in
the right forum?


EDIT: I have nothing against technology. It's the application that concerns me.

[surf]

I truly hope you are being sarcastic.

Driving is one of our last remaining freedoms. To eliminate it
would be a tragic step in the wrong direction.


you know, if it weren't for tire companies lobbying for public funding of roads (back in the day) - i'm not so sure that the 'pod' idea isn't that far off from where we would be today.

hey, i like F1 and seeing the Monaco race is always cool. but i'd rather not drive on a Seattle freeway most of the time. what you see as one of "our last remaining freedoms" i see as one of our least efficient and evolved technologies - and the reason for this is primarily gov't interference with the transportation markets.

don't get the wrong impression that i am in favor of eliminating anything other than gov't subsidies and red-light cameras - my argument is simply that transport has not evolved as it should in a free market and that those of us that would rather drink a beer or smoke a joint while we get from point a to point b do not get to do this because of gov't interference.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I agree about the evolution of transportation.
As far as the evolution of drivers, well, that's what
I've been working on for 12 years with my writings.


and that those of us that would rather drink a beer or smoke a joint while we get from point a to point b do not get to do this because of gov't interference.

you could if you really wanted to.

[tnvoter]

Count me in.

[syborius]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

Your argument totally sucks. Post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Drunk/bad drivers are probably more likely to hit you in the first place, and those types of drivers will never pay attention to a camera. So if you want to minimize the risk of getting hit by a car take your bike and put it in a regional park somewhere, or a canal bike path, and off the damn road. You will never get accurate statistics based on the reasoning that cameras are some sort of causal indicator of "more", or "less" accidents at a particular intersection. That is like saying a billboard telling you to slow down will cause less accident, and within 3 months you look at the stats and proclaim it is indeed the billboard that has caused a decrease. Accidents for the most part happen independently of any external factor such as cameras at intersections. They happen because either the driver doesn't know how to drive, is drunk,on drugs, or has something or other impairing his judgment.

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

Your argument totally sucks. Post hoc ergo propter hoc!

Drunk/bad drivers are probably more likely to hit you in the first place, and those types of drivers will never pay attention to a camera. So if you want to minimize the risk of getting hit by a car take your bike and put it in a regional park somewhere, or a canal bike path, and off the damn road. You will never get accurate statistics based on the reasoning that cameras are some sort of causal indicator of "more", or "less" accidents at a particular intersection. That is like saying a billboard telling you to slow down will cause less accident, and within 3 months you look at the stats and proclaim it is indeed the billboard that has caused a decrease. Accidents for the most part happen independently of any external factor such as cameras at intersections. They happen because either the driver doesn't know how to drive, is drunk,on drugs, or has something or other impairing his judgment.

not to forget that these regulations create even more traffic congestion
by unnecessarily slowing and stopping traffic which has a profound affect
on thousands of other drivers... both short term and long term.

And as far as safer for bicycling, you to will get condition to not watch
traffic (since there's laws and regulations and now red light cams) as
much as you did before...

I see ALL the time with 'pedestrian's have the right-of-way' law. It creates
accidents and severe traffic congestion and leads to 'different' fatal accident
situations. Time and time again, I see (and hear) parents walking blindly
across the street (with children or a baby carriage) without every looking
even once. And I'll often hear "Hey, it's the law!!!"

Well, that dumbass law gets people killed and makes people even more
dumb and irresponsible than before!

And even worse, they are teaching their children very, very bad habits!

How stupid!

[slamhead]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.


http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f12/red-light-cameras-increase-crashes-insurance-rates-428539/

Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes And Insurance Rates - Study

Humphrey Cheung

March 12, 2008 12:11


Miami (FL) - A University Of South Florida College Of Public Health study says red light cameras actually increase the number and severity of crashes. The study examined red light camera accident data from around the United States and Canada and found an up to 40% increase in accident rates at some camera-equipped intersections. Researchers also contend that insurance companies benefit from the cameras by increasing the premiums of offenders.

"The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don't work," said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, a professor at the University of South Florida. Orban's team compiled data from five red-light traffic studies and concluded that accident rates increase between 29 and 50 percent at most red-light camera intersections. One North Carolina study showed injury crashes actually rose between 40 and 50 percent over a five year period. Another Virginia Transportation Research Council study calculated an accident rate increase of 29 percent.

The main cause of accidents was people slamming on the brakes to avoid going through a yellow light. Orban claims drivers would normally go through a yellow light at uncontrolled intersections.

Red-light camera supporters have often claimed that the cameras reduce the number of more severe side-impact or "T-Bone" crashes, but the USF study found that controlled intersections saw no measurable decrease in severe accident rates.

Florida has so far banned cities and counties from using red-light cameras, but Hillsborough County has recently approved the installation of 10 red-light cameras. Red-light ticket revenue has been a windfall for cash-strapped cities. San Diego made $30 million in 18 months from such tickets with $7 million coming from one camera. Hundreds of those tickets were thrown out in August 2001 by Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn after discovering that red-light camera maker Lockheed Martin IMS received $70 per ticket.

Orban is advocating giving drivers more time to safely clear the intersection by increasing yellow light times or by making a brief all-red intersection.

[slamhead]

Damn..I am trying to find the picture of the couple from a red light camera. Funny as hell...she is giving the passenger a hand job while blowing the red light.

[evadmurd]

I don't mean to bring facts into this discussion, but those studies have proven to be bullshit. Initially accidents at these intersection MAY go up slightly. That is becuase people are stopping short when they realizethat the camera is there. But FURTHER studies (like past the first couple months) all absolutely DO show a decrease in accidents. Not a huge decrease, but a decrease nonetheless.

Whether you are in favor of them or not, using bogus study findings is a bad way to go about things.

But sorry...I just can't get on board this "it is about freedom" thing. You never had the freedom to run red lights. And as a bicyclist, I am very much in favor of anything that cuts down my risk of having an idiot slam into me at an intersection. Again.

Simply increasing the yellow light time and the "all red" are shown to significantly decrease accidents, not red light cameras.

[evadmurd]

Many municipalities terminated the program after it was no longer a money making endeavor. Really interested in safety, weren't they?

Dallas , TX; Charlotte, NC; Fayetteville, NC; Bolingbrook, IL; Lubbock, TX:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/

Houston, TX:
http://www.click2houston.com/investigates/15969702/detail.html

Greensboro NC shuts down cameras. This is the venue of the original Burkey and Obeng statistical study on RLCs:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/267.asp

And here is another story on Lubbock, TX:
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/021508/loc_247128772.shtml

San Diego is also having second thoughts:
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/cd7/priorities/rlcameras.shtml

[A Ron Paul Rebel]

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f12/red-light-cameras-increase-crashes-insurance-rates-428539/

Red Light Cameras Increase Crashes And Insurance Rates - Study

Humphrey Cheung

March 12, 2008 12:11


Miami (FL) - A University Of South Florida College Of Public Health study says red light cameras actually increase the number and severity of crashes. The study examined red light camera accident data from around the United States and Canada and found an up to 40% increase in accident rates at some camera-equipped intersections. Researchers also contend that insurance companies benefit from the cameras by increasing the premiums of offenders.

"The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don't work," said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, a professor at the University of South Florida. Orban's team compiled data from five red-light traffic studies and concluded that accident rates increase between 29 and 50 percent at most red-light camera intersections. One North Carolina study showed injury crashes actually rose between 40 and 50 percent over a five year period. Another Virginia Transportation Research Council study calculated an accident rate increase of 29 percent.

The main cause of accidents was people slamming on the brakes to avoid going through a yellow light. Orban claims drivers would normally go through a yellow light at uncontrolled intersections.

Red-light camera supporters have often claimed that the cameras reduce the number of more severe side-impact or "T-Bone" crashes, but the USF study found that controlled intersections saw no measurable decrease in severe accident rates.

Florida has so far banned cities and counties from using red-light cameras, but Hillsborough County has recently approved the installation of 10 red-light cameras. Red-light ticket revenue has been a windfall for cash-strapped cities. San Diego made $30 million in 18 months from such tickets with $7 million coming from one camera. Hundreds of those tickets were thrown out in August 2001 by Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn after discovering that red-light camera maker Lockheed Martin IMS received $70 per ticket.

Orban is advocating giving drivers more time to safely clear the intersection by increasing yellow light times or by making a brief all-red intersection.

this is what I've been saying :)

[Primbs]

D.C. camera deal ignores U.S. rules
Pay-per-citation tack discouraged

The District's latest traffic-camera contract runs counter to federal guidelines and expert recommendations that warn against paying contractors based on the number of citations they issue because such pay plans erode public support for the automated programs.

"Where a private contractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation to private vendors based on the number of citations issued should be avoided," the Federal Highway

City contract flashes red light
Number of camera-issued tickets determines company's revenue

The D.C. government's traffic-camera contract provides the contractor with a flat monthly fee and extra money based on the number of citations issued, angering critics who say profits, not safety, drive the use of the technology.

The District has agreed to pay ACS State & Local Solutions a fixed fee of $651,735 per month to handle speed and red-light tickets, according to a six-month contract extension approved in December.

Then the no bid contractors shorten the yellow light to get more revenue from the red lights. It is happening all over the country.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html

[Bruno]

They were shut down in Clive, Iowa, a suburb of Des Moines as well.


http://www.ketv.com/news/10671043/detail.html

[fr33domfightr]

If cities were really concerned about public safety all they'd need to do is extend the time of the Yellow lights. I've also seen the all-Red situation where there is a built in delay between one red showing up and the green in the cross direction. Either way, this would reduce T-bone accidents. It's also a lot cheaper to extend timing than installing and maintaining all these cameras. What a waist of taxpayer money!

[torchbearer]

If cities were really concerned about public safety all they'd need to do is extend the time of the Yellow lights. I've also seen the all-Red situation where there is a built in delay between one red showing up and the green in the cross direction. Either way, this would reduce T-bone accidents. It's also a lot cheaper to extend timing than installing and maintaining all these cameras. What a waist of taxpayer money!

this.

[evadmurd]

If cities were really concerned about public safety all they'd need to do is extend the time of the Yellow lights. I've also seen the all-Red situation where there is a built in delay between one red showing up and the green in the cross direction. Either way, this would reduce T-bone accidents. It's also a lot cheaper to extend timing than installing and maintaining all these cameras. What a waist of taxpayer money!

The problem with that, and the way it is sold to the unsuspecting (stupid) public is that there is no expense! The cameras are put up by an independent corporation whose sole purpose is to make money. Redflex, for example:

Revenue Sharing Formula:
< $4500 per camera per month: 15% to City, 85% to Redflex
> $4500 per camera per month: 50% to City, 50% to Redflex

THEY foot the bill at NO cost to the city. Of course it isn't explained that is only up front costs, and does not mention the cost of legal challenges, the loss of law enforcement manpower on the street as it takes one full time cop to review and process all of the pictures. Of course they could always hire some one, but that is an expediture as well.

[berrybunches]

Cincinnati Ohio has a major campaign against the use of the cameras.
The website is www.wedemandavote.com/ (they want to take the issue to the polls)
Anyone is favor of these cameras should take note. There are many good articles on the cameras there.

Things wrong with them:

They ticket your car, not the driver - if you let a friend borrow your car, with or without your consent...they run a red light - you get mailed the ticket. Same if your kid uses the car - you pay

You can't contest them either, no court date. You pay no matter what, no matter the emergency, no matter if traffic got backed up when you were in the middle of the lane, no matter if you were driving your pregnant wife to the hospital, no matter if you car was stolen...your license plate, the camera goes off, you pay.

Out of town driver - they may not know about the cameras, like one woman, she took a right on red - as is allowed in any suburban area I have ever went to - she gets a ticket a month later in a different state.

The manufacturers of the lights get 50% of ALL ticket revenue...If you run a red light they get $50 and your city gets $50..
It is no coincidence that all the sudden your cities became interested in this technology at the same time. They didn't just run across this idea - the lobbyist came to them and "suggested" they buy their product.

What about right on red? What about left on green (without a signal) we are not allowed to do this anymore?

The last thing wrong - How many accidents have you seen caused by red light accidents? How many times have you felt at peril at an intersection? Mysel, relitivly few times, if any.
All I know is that when I go to the mall at Christmas time and am forced to stop in the intersection because the congestion and get a picture taken of my car I will have lost complete faith in system. The idiots who think this is a good idea should be ashamed you a have not done your research..I would have thought more of Paul supporters.