|
Red light cameras too good for their own good?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
Isn't that ironic?! 
| quote: | Red light cameras too good for their own good?
Some cities rethink devices as drivers pay heed, reducing fine revenue
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 6:59 p.m. CT, Thurs., March. 20, 2008
Last week, Dallas officials reviewed the numbers and decided that a quarter of the cameras they had installed to catch motorists running red lights were too effective. So they shut them down.
... |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970 |
|
|
| pmoisse |
You can't be serious?!
This points to every rumour / stereotype about cops always laying more fines at the end of the month to get quotas and such. They've already spent the money to buy and install the cameras too! Why just let them sit there?
, the roads are safer! You're saving money in hospital costs and lives!
What more could you want? Oh yeah - money. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| reminds me of the smoking tax..... less people are smoking so now the revenue from the tax is not as much as they thought... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Police should install cameras at EVERY major traffic light, but they dont have to monitor each one, only the ones where there's significant violations or random checks. I have a solution to the problem - the catch is, most of these cameras dont have to be monitored for areas with very little traffic violations, and not all the time. But taking them off is such a dumb idea. They should just leave the cameras there and not monitor them, and people will think that they're still operational and not speed.
Or even better, for greater public security - install many "fake" cameras all over. You'd know the effect of this ;) |
|
|
| nchs09 |
omg:rolleyes:
How stupid is that. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| this just goes to show that traffic laws really are not primarily intended to provide for the safety of the public; rather, the main purpose, at least from dallas' point of view, is to tax the driving population. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Police should install cameras at EVERY major traffic light, but they dont have to monitor each one, only the ones where there's significant violations or random checks. I have a solution to the problem - the catch is, most of these cameras dont have to be monitored for areas with very little traffic violations, and not all the time. But taking them off is such a dumb idea. They should just leave the cameras there and not monitor them, and people will think that they're still operational and not speed.
Or even better, for greater public security - install many "fake" cameras all over. You'd know the effect of this ;) |
Dude, if they're redlight camera's the camera's themselves are automated - no donut eating pig is there watching people run reds and trying to take their picture like you're shooting at Duck Hunt.
It's free money.
Until the public actually slows down and gets safer which was the reason they were installed anyways, right? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
the red light camera's are bull for a few reasons.
1. the only real deterent for bad driving in ontario is fear of insurance rate hikes. Fines are one thing, but a major ticket can cost you hundreds and thousands of dollars per year in insurance premiums. Red light cameras can not prove who was driving the vehicle so all that happens is the owner of the vehicle gets a nice 140 bill in the mail.
2. As it is an automated system, its programed with a threshold. I got a red light ticket back in november of this year in ottawa. The ticket said i crossed the stop bar 0.06 seconds after the light turned red. thankfully i am armed with an MTO GDM manual and a MUTCD book, so i was able to show to the judge that the intersection was designed below standard and that the traffic signal heads were not mounted at the propper height and he canceled the ticket for me. Point being, the TAC manual specifies that driver perception reaction time is set to 2.5 seconds, and if that is the spec that is used to design the signal timings and road geometry for safety, why are they issuing tickets for hitting the intersection 0.06s late?
this whole system is a cash grab, same as average speed cameras or photo radar systems. they dont punish individuals, it punishes owners. Since no one can be held accountable, its just a cash grab. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
the red light camera's are bull for a few reasons.
1. Red light cameras can not prove who was driving the vehicle so all that happens is the owner of the vehicle gets a nice 140 bill in the mail. |
that because your public officials are stupid. each car should have a primary driver listed against it and its guilty until proven innocent, ie someone fills in a statdec admitting to the offence. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Or even better, for greater public security - install many "fake" cameras all over. You'd know the effect of this ;) |
We have that all over our motorway network. Well not face cameras but camera casings. The thing is at any one point in time there will not be more that two or three cameras installed but you can never know where they are so you always pay attention when driving past one of these.
Add to that that our traffic fines are simply insane. Go a little to fast within city limits and you can easily loose 1000€. Thats two months pay right there. They are saying that this is to improve safety which everybody knows is bull...we have more accidents and deaths today when the fines are ten times what they were ten years ago and the number of people driving hasnt increased significantly so its clear that high fines arent doing to reduce accidents
Our traffic policy is, well i wouldn't say that its in the gutter since that would be a significant improvement over the actual state of it. And the current goverment is intentionally ing it up more so it can score some political points with the idiots who they hope will vote for them. But im happy to say that the way things are going they wont last for much long. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that because your public officials are stupid. each car should have a primary driver listed against it and its guilty until proven innocent, ie someone fills in a statdec admitting to the offence. |
you do realize the burden of proof is on the crown. without photographic evidence or police eye witness testimony every case would be thrown out of court if they attempted to stick it to the registered primary driver. |
|
|
|
|
