The cameras are sold to localities as revenue generators,with safety a secndary consideration. My concern is that the caameras do not ticket drivers, but cars. And, if you dispute the ticket, it is up to you to prove your innocence, opposite the government proving you guilty.
I don't have time to find the reference but I remember reading about someone who successfully fought their town's red light camera policy by citing stats that "rolling right on red", the typical red light camera violation, were not significant causes of accidents while the red light cameras significantly increased rear end collisions.
My real issue with them is that depending on how they're implemented they might be impossible to defend against. As long as the ticket is sent quickly enough after the incident that you can recall the details and video is provided so that you can determine whether or not you had a valid reason to blow the light I don't have a problem with them, provided the locality isn't monkeying with light timings.
My town issues parking tickets based on photos taken by paid volunteers. In the age of photoshop I have some very big issues with that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Trump, patientia nostra?
What is it with folks wanting an excuse for running red lights? No, it's not acceptable, ever, and you should be fined each and every time and the fines should be punitive.
In Chicago, they are impossible to defend- much like parking tickets.
The court costs to defend the ticket is basically what it will cost you to pay it.
Kind of a scam.
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
Last edited by clownboy; 05-27-13 at 11:10 AM.
As an aside: In Sweden they reduced the speed limit during the summer to 90km nationwide about 30-years ago. They claimed it would save 2,000 lives and had banners stating so on bridges etc... Wrong. It got more people killed and injured. They action was stopped.
What I couldn't understand is it's the time of year when it's dry, the streets are warm, it's light almost 16 to 24-hours a day, and people drive with headlights on day or night. I might understand it if it was done during the winter... it wasn't!
I'm wondering if it wasn't just a revenue raiser, as 90km on good highways is like walking... backwards.
I AM DEPLORABLE.
NEVER CRIMINAL HILLARY (S-NY)
My problem with red light cameras is that oftentimes they are screened by a private company that makes money off of the tickets. They are also harder to contest in court where you argue against a picture. I fear that many localities would use a system to abuse tickets and generate revenue. Where I live they had red light cameras installed. but when they did so they also cut the yellow light time down from 3 sec to 2 sec which is not only more dangerous but was done to try and get people to violate the law in areas where they installed these cameras.
I think it's fine to have cameras though and to catch those who violate the red light laws. My only thing is that it should be done by a monitoring center within the locality and the cameras should be reviewed solely by police officers in the jurisdiction issuing the tickets and not by some guy working for a private company hundreds of miles away.